Police cyclists

John Kane

On Apr 25, 3:25*pm, Tom Crispin
<kije.rem...@this.bit.freeuk.com.munge> wrote:
> On Fri, 25 Apr 2008 09:33:18 -0700 (PDT), james.de...@googlemail.com
> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> >On Apr 25, 1:44 pm, leand...@googlemail.com wrote:
> >> On Apr 24, 11:14 pm, Tim Hall <timh...@nospamtoday.clara.co.uk> wrote:
>
> >> > Police cyclists demonstrating the superior training they get.
>
> >> Taking a slightly different angle, the subject of training for police
> >> cyclists has come up a few times. The reader comments under this
> >> article
>
> >>http://www.thisisgloucestershire.co...?nodeId=258119&....
>
> >I am staggered that the councillors are moaning about GBP700 for an
> >equipped police bike on that grounds that halfords sell cheaper bikes
> >and questioning whether training for police cyclists might be
> >necessary. *Aren't councillors supposed to have professional staff to
> >advise them on topics that they haven't got a clue about. *On balance,
> >the reader comments are a bit more encouraging.
>
> I can see the councillors' point.
>
> If cycling is a normal everyday activity, why can't a community
> support officer use an ordinary bike to get around? *Does it have to
> be a specially equipped? *Do they need special training?
>
> OK - city police, chasing handbag grabbers, shoplifters or drug
> dealers down and up(?) stairs, along allyways and through shopping
> centres may need to be properly equipped and trained. *But a village
> bobby going to investigate Mrs Miggins' missing knickers from her
> washing line, with two giggling boys hiding in the ditch opposite!?
>
> Surely a simple Pashley would be more than adequate.http://www.johnballcycling.org.uk/p...k/photos/bobby-

The police have a responsibility to properly train their officers so
training costs are reasonable Just because the officers are community
support does not mean that they will not be involved in the type of
crime you mention. Sending officers out on a Halford's BSO is
probably not the best idea.

Hull (Quebec) City police have reported that a cycling police officer
is often able to approach a criminal/crime scene more closely than
pedestrians or cars so the possibility of stumbling over a crime seems
to exist where they may have to respond.

John Kane Kingston ON Canada

Rob Morley

In article <bcc02584-e85a-48b5-afab-f8132edccaf1
@c58g2000hsc.googlegroups.com>,
leandr42@googlemail.com says...

> The only time I've seen a PCSO on a bike in Gloucestershire, he was in
> the gutter in what looked like ordinary uniform, so if he'd been on
> the training, it hadn't worked.
>
I saw one in the gutter yesterday. They're more usually on the
pavement, and I'm not sure which is worse.

Mark

On Fri, 25 Apr 2008 20:25:36 +0100, Tom Crispin
<kije.remove@this.bit.freeuk.com.munge> wrote:

>On Fri, 25 Apr 2008 09:33:18 -0700 (PDT), james.delap@googlemail.com
>wrote:
>
>>On Apr 25, 1:44 pm, leand...@googlemail.com wrote:
>>> On Apr 24, 11:14 pm, Tim Hall <timh...@nospamtoday.clara.co.uk> wrote:
>>>
>>> > Police cyclists demonstrating the superior training they get.
>>>
>>> Taking a slightly different angle, the subject of training for police
>>> cyclists has come up a few times. The reader comments under this
>>> article
>>>
>>> http://www.thisisgloucestershire.co...?nodeId=258119&...
>>>
>>
>>I am staggered that the councillors are moaning about GBP700 for an
>>equipped police bike on that grounds that halfords sell cheaper bikes
>>and questioning whether training for police cyclists might be
>>necessary. Aren't councillors supposed to have professional staff to
>>advise them on topics that they haven't got a clue about. On balance,
>>the reader comments are a bit more encouraging.
>
>I can see the councillors' point.
>
>If cycling is a normal everyday activity, why can't a community
>support officer use an ordinary bike to get around? Does it have to
>be a specially equipped? Do they need special training?

Why should the Police have to ride BSOs? They'll never work properly
and get chucked in a skip after a few months with all the rest. I
would hazard a guess that they would have to undergo special training
in today's H&S obsessed world.

>OK - city police, chasing handbag grabbers, shoplifters or drug
>dealers down and up(?) stairs, along allyways and through shopping
>centres may need to be properly equipped and trained. But a village
>bobby going to investigate Mrs Miggins' missing knickers from her
>washing line, with two giggling boys hiding in the ditch opposite!?

So they don't have handbag grabbers, shoplifters or drug dealers (or
even stairs) in Glos? This is the 21st Century, not an episode of
Camberwick Green.

--
(\__/) M.
(='.'=) Owing to the amount of spam posted via googlegroups
(")_(") I am blocking most articles posted from there.

Rob Morley

In article <vh1b145d1bo50av5nnk31786om537tq4lf@4ax.com>, Mark
i@getlotsofspamthankstoplus.net says...

> Why should the Police have to ride BSOs? They'll never work properly
> and get chucked in a skip after a few months with all the rest. I
> would hazard a guess that they would have to undergo special training
> in today's H&S obsessed world.
>
Apparently not, judging by the abysmal standard of riding that is
regularly observed - if they do receive training it is either not
working or not appropriate. An interesting possibility for extended
training might be defence and restraint techniques using the bicycle as
a tool/weapon. :-)

bugbear

Rob Horton wrote:
>
> Surely the only people to complain about wheelies are those who would
> like to do it but can't.

I don't know; when a young idiiot pulls a wheelie,
not in any kind of control, in a pedestrain zone,
heading straight for me, I feel entitled to complain.

BugBear (yes, it happened)

David Hansen

On Mon, 28 Apr 2008 14:04:34 +0100 someone who may be bugbear
<bugbear@trim_papermule.co.uk_trim> wrote this:-

>I don't know; when a young idiiot pulls a wheelie,
>not in any kind of control, in a pedestrain zone,
>heading straight for me, I feel entitled to complain.

I suggest that it is young idiots doing this on motorbikes who pose
more danger to pedestrians. This is because of the greater speed and
mass of a motorbike compared to a bike.

<http://www.pressandjournal.co.uk/Article.aspx/610988> is a recent
example. By the way, unlike some quoted in the newspaper, I don't
blame the police for the crash.



--
David Hansen, Edinburgh
I will *always* explain revoked encryption keys, unless RIP prevents me
http://www.opsi.gov.uk/acts/acts2000/00023--e.htm#54

bugbear

David Hansen wrote:
> On Mon, 28 Apr 2008 14:04:34 +0100 someone who may be bugbear
> <bugbear@trim_papermule.co.uk_trim> wrote this:-
>
>> I don't know; when a young idiiot pulls a wheelie,
>> not in any kind of control, in a pedestrain zone,
>> heading straight for me, I feel entitled to complain.
>
> I suggest that it is young idiots doing this on motorbikes who pose
> more danger to pedestrians. This is because of the greater speed and
> mass of a motorbike compared to a bike.

Sorry - are you saying I should ignore the cyclist,
or not feel agrieved, because the same action
on a motor bike is even worse?

BugBear (confused)

David Hansen

On Mon, 28 Apr 2008 16:44:52 +0100 someone who may be bugbear
<bugbear@trim_papermule.co.uk_trim> wrote this:-

>Sorry - are you saying I should ignore the cyclist,
>or not feel agrieved, because the same action
>on a motor bike is even worse?

You are confusing, whether by accident or design, the specific with
the general.

The specific is what is used by journalists and some party
politicians. The general is what is useful in deciding on risks and
consists of many specific events (including the events you and I
have mentioned). To put it another way, just because you may not
have had a motorcyclist heading towards you that does not mean it
doesn't happen.


--
David Hansen, Edinburgh
I will *always* explain revoked encryption keys, unless RIP prevents me
http://www.opsi.gov.uk/acts/acts2000/00023--e.htm#54

bugbear

David Hansen wrote:
> On Mon, 28 Apr 2008 16:44:52 +0100 someone who may be bugbear
> <bugbear@trim_papermule.co.uk_trim> wrote this:-
>
>> Sorry - are you saying I should ignore the cyclist,
>> or not feel agrieved, because the same action
>> on a motor bike is even worse?
>
> You are confusing, whether by accident or design, the specific with
> the general.
>
> The specific is what is used by journalists and some party
> politicians. The general is what is useful in deciding on risks and
> consists of many specific events (including the events you and I
> have mentioned). To put it another way, just because you may not
> have had a motorcyclist heading towards you that does not mean it
> doesn't happen.

I don't see why the (accepted for the moment) fact
of a greater risk (the wheelie-ing motorcyclist)
should have any great bearing on me evaluating
the cyclist's behaviour to be wrong?

88mm field guns exist; they are *EVEN* more dangerous
than motorbikes...

BugBear

Tom Crispin

On Mon, 28 Apr 2008 09:18:07 +0100, Mark
<i@getlotsofspamthankstoplus.net> wrote:

>>If cycling is a normal everyday activity, why can't a community
>>support officer use an ordinary bike to get around? Does it have to
>>be a specially equipped? Do they need special training?
>
>Why should the Police have to ride BSOs? They'll never work properly
>and get chucked in a skip after a few months with all the rest. I
>would hazard a guess that they would have to undergo special training
>in today's H&S obsessed world.

BSOs - It was never my suggestion that police officers or support
officers be asked to ride a crap bike. My point is that if the
officers purely want the bike to get from A to B, the bike does not
need to be specially equipped or the officer specially trained.

If, on the other hand, the bike is being used to chase and catch
criminals over a variety of terrains it does need to be specially
equipped and the officers specially trained.

After all, the police use a variety of cars, and police officers
driving those cars have a variety of training. I am not sure what
percentage of police are trained for high speed pursuit - but I bet
it's a minority. It could easily be the same with police cyclists -
only a few need special training on specially equipped bikes, the rest
can go about their day to day business of taking statements and
cycling their beat on a normal* bike without specialist training.

*normal does not imply a BSO.

>>OK - city police, chasing handbag grabbers, shoplifters or drug
>>dealers down and up(?) stairs, along allyways and through shopping
>>centres may need to be properly equipped and trained. But a village
>>bobby going to investigate Mrs Miggins' missing knickers from her
>>washing line, with two giggling boys hiding in the ditch opposite!?
>
>So they don't have handbag grabbers, shoplifters or drug dealers (or
>even stairs) in Glos? This is the 21st Century, not an episode of
>Camberwick Green.

OK - I was being poetic - but I am sure you understand the distinction
between using a bike for pursuit and using a bike to get about.

Mark T

bugbear writtificated

> 88mm field guns exist; they are *EVEN* more dangerous
> than motorbikes...

Please get a sense of perspective.

I suggest that it is young nations with nukes who pose the most danger.
The use of 88mm field guns on public footways is of trivial consequence
relative to the anti-social use of nuclear weapons on our public rights of
way.

Mark

On Mon, 28 Apr 2008 18:54:48 +0100, Tom Crispin
<kije.remove@this.bit.freeuk.com.munge> wrote:

>On Mon, 28 Apr 2008 09:18:07 +0100, Mark
><i@getlotsofspamthankstoplus.net> wrote:
>
>>>If cycling is a normal everyday activity, why can't a community
>>>support officer use an ordinary bike to get around? Does it have to
>>>be a specially equipped? Do they need special training?
>>
>>Why should the Police have to ride BSOs? They'll never work properly
>>and get chucked in a skip after a few months with all the rest. I
>>would hazard a guess that they would have to undergo special training
>>in today's H&S obsessed world.
>
>BSOs - It was never my suggestion that police officers or support
>officers be asked to ride a crap bike. My point is that if the
>officers purely want the bike to get from A to B, the bike does not
>need to be specially equipped or the officer specially trained.
>
>If, on the other hand, the bike is being used to chase and catch
>criminals over a variety of terrains it does need to be specially
>equipped and the officers specially trained.

There's no reason to assume that the bikes would never be used for
pursuit. It was deemed necessary for them to be suitable for off road
use so they need to be better than postie's bike*.

(* Here's where someone says that postie's bikes are the best ;-)

>After all, the police use a variety of cars, and police officers
>driving those cars have a variety of training. I am not sure what
>percentage of police are trained for high speed pursuit - but I bet
>it's a minority. It could easily be the same with police cyclists -
>only a few need special training on specially equipped bikes, the rest
>can go about their day to day business of taking statements and
>cycling their beat on a normal* bike without specialist training.
>
>*normal does not imply a BSO.

IIRC it was suggested that 10 bikes could be bought for the same money
from Halfords. That would make them BSOs IMHO. £700 for a mountain
bike does not seem excessive to me.

>>>OK - city police, chasing handbag grabbers, shoplifters or drug
>>>dealers down and up(?) stairs, along allyways and through shopping
>>>centres may need to be properly equipped and trained. But a village
>>>bobby going to investigate Mrs Miggins' missing knickers from her
>>>washing line, with two giggling boys hiding in the ditch opposite!?
>>
>>So they don't have handbag grabbers, shoplifters or drug dealers (or
>>even stairs) in Glos? This is the 21st Century, not an episode of
>>Camberwick Green.
>
>OK - I was being poetic - but I am sure you understand the distinction
>between using a bike for pursuit and using a bike to get about.

To me that paragraph seemed to imply that there was no serious crime
in the area, the worst being stolen washing. To quote from the
orginal article on the web site:

"The bikes have specialist kit on them and as they are used every day
they must therefore be robust and able to cross rough and varied
terrains.
"We will continue to make good use of these bikes as they are
particularly effective when targeting issues such as anti-social
behaviour."

From this quote I would assume the bikes will be used to chase "yoofs"
across rough ground after they have committed a crime.

I still believe that buying cheap bikes is false economy. The Police
are only intending to buy two anyway. I really don't know what the
fuss is about.

--
(\__/) M.
(='.'=) Owing to the amount of spam posted via googlegroups
(")_(") I am blocking most articles posted from there.

bugbear

Mark T wrote:
> bugbear writtificated
>
>> 88mm field guns exist; they are *EVEN* more dangerous
>> than motorbikes...
>
> Please get a sense of perspective.
>
> I suggest that it is young nations with nukes who pose the most danger.
> The use of 88mm field guns on public footways is of trivial consequence
> relative to the anti-social use of nuclear weapons on our public rights of
> way.

Absolutely :-)

BugBear

Tom Crispin

On Tue, 29 Apr 2008 09:07:39 +0100, Mark
<i@getlotsofspamthankstoplus.net> wrote:

>On Mon, 28 Apr 2008 18:54:48 +0100, Tom Crispin
><kije.remove@this.bit.freeuk.com.munge> wrote:
>
>>On Mon, 28 Apr 2008 09:18:07 +0100, Mark
>><i@getlotsofspamthankstoplus.net> wrote:
>>
>>>>If cycling is a normal everyday activity, why can't a community
>>>>support officer use an ordinary bike to get around? Does it have to
>>>>be a specially equipped? Do they need special training?
>>>
>>>Why should the Police have to ride BSOs? They'll never work properly
>>>and get chucked in a skip after a few months with all the rest. I
>>>would hazard a guess that they would have to undergo special training
>>>in today's H&S obsessed world.
>>
>>BSOs - It was never my suggestion that police officers or support
>>officers be asked to ride a crap bike. My point is that if the
>>officers purely want the bike to get from A to B, the bike does not
>>need to be specially equipped or the officer specially trained.
>>
>>If, on the other hand, the bike is being used to chase and catch
>>criminals over a variety of terrains it does need to be specially
>>equipped and the officers specially trained.
>
>There's no reason to assume that the bikes would never be used for
>pursuit. It was deemed necessary for them to be suitable for off road
>use so they need to be better than postie's bike*.
>
>(* Here's where someone says that postie's bikes are the best ;-)

OK - but on occassion panda cars might be used for a pursuit.

But read this line in the original article:
"They [the PCSOs] wanted them so they wouldn't have to get around by
bus."

That implies road cycling.

>>After all, the police use a variety of cars, and police officers
>>driving those cars have a variety of training. I am not sure what
>>percentage of police are trained for high speed pursuit - but I bet
>>it's a minority. It could easily be the same with police cyclists -
>>only a few need special training on specially equipped bikes, the rest
>>can go about their day to day business of taking statements and
>>cycling their beat on a normal* bike without specialist training.
>>
>>*normal does not imply a BSO.
>
>IIRC it was suggested that 10 bikes could be bought for the same money
>from Halfords. That would make them BSOs IMHO. £700 for a mountain
>bike does not seem excessive to me.

Agreed, £700 (excl VAT) at trade price will buy a good quality bike
costing at least twice as much retail. But the councillors' beef was
the cost of £1,350 per bike, equipment and training.

>>>>OK - city police, chasing handbag grabbers, shoplifters or drug
>>>>dealers down and up(?) stairs, along allyways and through shopping
>>>>centres may need to be properly equipped and trained. But a village
>>>>bobby going to investigate Mrs Miggins' missing knickers from her
>>>>washing line, with two giggling boys hiding in the ditch opposite!?
>>>
>>>So they don't have handbag grabbers, shoplifters or drug dealers (or
>>>even stairs) in Glos? This is the 21st Century, not an episode of
>>>Camberwick Green.
>>
>>OK - I was being poetic - but I am sure you understand the distinction
>>between using a bike for pursuit and using a bike to get about.
>
>To me that paragraph seemed to imply that there was no serious crime
>in the area, the worst being stolen washing. To quote from the
>orginal article on the web site:
>
>"The bikes have specialist kit on them and as they are used every day
>they must therefore be robust and able to cross rough and varied
>terrains.
>"We will continue to make good use of these bikes as they are
>particularly effective when targeting issues such as anti-social
>behaviour."

That doesn't really tie up with the purpose the PCSOs say they will
put their bikes to.

Now, if the PCSOs are having their job changed to specialist cycling
PCSOs that's a completely different matter, and the Police should be
funding in full the purchase of the bikes, training and equipment.
However, if they just want a bike to replace the odd bus journey then
it seems entirely reasonable that they use reasonable quality bikes
for use on the road, without specialist equipment and training.

>From this quote I would assume the bikes will be used to chase "yoofs"
>across rough ground after they have committed a crime.
>
>I still believe that buying cheap bikes is false economy. The Police
>are only intending to buy two anyway. I really don't know what the
>fuss is about.

There is little argument over the cost of the bikes. Its the training
and specialist equipment that the fuss seems to be about.

Have you heard the siren on a police bike? They sound like demented
bees. Once when I was training some nine year olds on Blackheath some
passing coppers showed off their sirens - my trainees fell about
laughing!