Misunderstanding with Plod
Discussion
Who was in the wrong ? This is the scenario. I was driving along the M40 north of Banbury, at an indicated 80ish. I then come across a Plod M class stopped on the hard shoulder, blues and reds going.
As I approach he pulled out in front of me into the middle lane, going quite slowly, at about 45ish I would estimate. I slow down to 60ish, and as I approach him, his arm appears out of the drivers window, and starts waving. Oh he wants me to pass thinks I, so I pull out into lane 3 and do so at around 55ish. As I pass his head pops out of the window, and he is clearly not very happy with me ! I then see 2 small planks of wood in lane 3, so I pull back into lane 2 to avoid them.
As I pass another plod in a yellow jacket nips out behind me from the hard shoulder, retrieves the planks, and runs back, narrowly avoiding the guy behind me who had also passed the plod M class.
It seems to me the guy driving the M class was giving totally ambiguous signals. If he had made no silly arm signals, but simply put on his hazards, and held station in lane 2, I would not have passed. If he had pulled into lane 3 there is no way I would have undertaken him. If he had used a matrix signalling board in the back window saying something like "hazard ahead do not pass" I wouldn't have passed either. As it was he gave a signal which conveyed the complete oppposite of what he wanted me to do. Or was I being a numpty and was it my fault ?
>>> Edited by gshughes on Tuesday 8th June 12:57
As I approach he pulled out in front of me into the middle lane, going quite slowly, at about 45ish I would estimate. I slow down to 60ish, and as I approach him, his arm appears out of the drivers window, and starts waving. Oh he wants me to pass thinks I, so I pull out into lane 3 and do so at around 55ish. As I pass his head pops out of the window, and he is clearly not very happy with me ! I then see 2 small planks of wood in lane 3, so I pull back into lane 2 to avoid them.
As I pass another plod in a yellow jacket nips out behind me from the hard shoulder, retrieves the planks, and runs back, narrowly avoiding the guy behind me who had also passed the plod M class.
It seems to me the guy driving the M class was giving totally ambiguous signals. If he had made no silly arm signals, but simply put on his hazards, and held station in lane 2, I would not have passed. If he had pulled into lane 3 there is no way I would have undertaken him. If he had used a matrix signalling board in the back window saying something like "hazard ahead do not pass" I wouldn't have passed either. As it was he gave a signal which conveyed the complete oppposite of what he wanted me to do. Or was I being a numpty and was it my fault ?
>>> Edited by gshughes on Tuesday 8th June 12:57
Its very difficult to put in a Rolling Road in those circumstances.
I could tell many many stories of people trying to get past me on many ocassions when ive had the appropriate signs up , waving my arms and swerving from side to side.
Its far safer to put the Rolling Road in on approach to the debris or other Hazard.
However, if you just happen across it and its a real danger to motorists then Safety for yourself is paramount....then other road users.
Sometimes Police take chances in the interest of Safety and sometimes they come unstuck, injuring or even killing themselves for the cause.
Ive seem some Trafpol from neighbouring Forces do some silly things and its only later that i find out that they are not even trained.
So i guess what im saying is that, no one was hurt and potential danger was averted....sounds like it was fortunate, but upon reflection....we are all lucky sometimes.
I could tell many many stories of people trying to get past me on many ocassions when ive had the appropriate signs up , waving my arms and swerving from side to side.
Its far safer to put the Rolling Road in on approach to the debris or other Hazard.
However, if you just happen across it and its a real danger to motorists then Safety for yourself is paramount....then other road users.
Sometimes Police take chances in the interest of Safety and sometimes they come unstuck, injuring or even killing themselves for the cause.
Ive seem some Trafpol from neighbouring Forces do some silly things and its only later that i find out that they are not even trained.
So i guess what im saying is that, no one was hurt and potential danger was averted....sounds like it was fortunate, but upon reflection....we are all lucky sometimes.
swilly said:
I wouldn't overtake a cop (or other emergency vehicle) with lights flashing sirens going.
Who knows, there may be a good reason why they are going slowly and flashing their lights.
Neither would I, except unfortunately in this instance, I misinterpreted his arm waving as a positive instruction to me to overtake. There could be a good reason for wanting vehicles to overtake them, It may have been that they were trying to stop a vehicle behind me, and wanted to get other traffic out of the way first. I think no signal is better than an ambiguous one.
>> Edited by gshughes on Tuesday 8th June 14:10
Terrible situation for the police, who know something's wrong yet don't have the means to communicate it. I guess the guy made a split-second decision that, in retrospect, wasn't ideal. At least he slowed you down so you didn't hit the hazard.
It's the sort of thing that could do with a public information film. Let's know exactly what signals the police will make in these circumstances, and then everyone will know what's happening when they do.
I did used to love Mr Molesworthy and his parking exploits. Nanny state? Yes, but at least it was educational rather than just another way to tax people. The idea that McDonalds should be "encouraged" to fund sports facilities to avoid legislation is tax-raising by blackmail.
It's the sort of thing that could do with a public information film. Let's know exactly what signals the police will make in these circumstances, and then everyone will know what's happening when they do.
I did used to love Mr Molesworthy and his parking exploits. Nanny state? Yes, but at least it was educational rather than just another way to tax people. The idea that McDonalds should be "encouraged" to fund sports facilities to avoid legislation is tax-raising by blackmail.
swilly said:In the case of an ambulance it might well be that they are transporting a spinal injury. I would overtake an ambulance travelling slowly (subject to sight-lines, etc.) but would ensure that I did not cause the driver to have to brake sharply or swerve - Streaky
I wouldn't overtake a cop (or other emergency vehicle) with lights flashing sirens going.
Who knows, there may be a good reason why they are going slowly and flashing their lights.
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff