Warning calls - 'car up', 'car down', etc.

[LittleWheelsandBig]

Last weekend's Bordeaux-Paris UAF 600 went well - 80 starters, 77 homologations. The motos there did a great job.

[David Martin]

'Car on' for ahead, 'car up' or 'car back' for behind.

[DrMekon]

Both in Cambridge and Otley, then norm has been

Car up (your bum) - behind
Car down (your throat) - ahead

WIth the groups I'm with. Much more confusion about potholes, which around here could swallow your forks, not just your wheel.

[Fab Foodie]

Once upon a time when we started our little clubette we used to partake of a wide variety of rides where any shouting was to warn of a real hazard.  We're not in close formation like a blind paceline.
Since a 'Sporting' club started in town and we share many members the shouting has become a cacophony   ... car-up/car-down/car passing .... we're on the road, cars are back and front and sometimes they overtake.  Do we need to shout every one FFS?  IMO better to shout the unexpected, the nobber rather than the mundane (though both kill of course).  I like the FNRttC approach.  Potholes are useful, slowing and stopping even more so, but not every bloody motor vehicle.
It's got to the point that when I lead a ride I ask for moderation on shouting.

[Ningishzidda]

In Yorkshire, IME, there was a distinction between 'oil' for big stuff and 'car' for, er, cars.

I'm happy with up and down.  Only really matters in quiet places or where the road is narrow or the group is large. 

Having done FNRs, we also call potholes, bumps for the stoker, glass, debris, doors opening, bollards, bungalows and bungaloids (see Mr Legg for the distinction).

The "Oil up!" shout IIRC, is a Cockneyism, where "Oil" is short for 'Oil tanker'.

In Brum, we shout "Car up" for any motor vehicle approaching from behind. To distinguish on size is irrelevant, as if you're hit by a car, you're dead, and if you're hit by a forty tonner, you're dead.

[vorsprung]

Up your nose, down your pants.

Interestingly, the convention that I've come across most often has it the other way round, "up" for back and "down" for front.  The mnemonic fro that one is somewhat ruder:-

(click to show/hide)

Up your bum, down your throat.

I agree with Oaky

[DaveReading]

It was "oil up" and "oil down" for a car approaching from front and back respectively in Stonehouse Wheelers in the '80s. People confused it then and they still do now, including me. I think "front" and "back" are far clearer (also, when it's not a car it can sound a bit unfortunate, eg "runner down!").

You give a warning when a runner is approaching from behind?  An Olympic sprinter, presumably. 

[tom_e]

I've always treated it as meaning there's a car about.  It's daft for the obvious reason that up and down don't point forwards and back.  But a bit of groupthink prevents the shouter from noting the stupidity of it.  Daft, but relatively harmless in view of what you can do with the information anyway.

[Cudzoziemiec]

It was "oil up" and "oil down" for a car approaching from front and back respectively in Stonehouse Wheelers in the '80s. People confused it then and they still do now, including me. I think "front" and "back" are far clearer (also, when it's not a car it can sound a bit unfortunate, eg "runner down!").

You give a warning when a runner is approaching from behind?  An Olympic sprinter, presumably. 

This is in Bristol CTC. Built for comfort pub meals not speed.
Except I see I've made a mistake in my previous post. Up and down refer to back and front respectively, the opposite of what I said. Sorry! So "runner down" warns of a runner coming towards us, say on a cycle path or running to face oncoming traffic.

[drossall]

I'm sure the other thread insisted that up was behind. That's not the way I learnt it, and it's very confusing if you accept it. As I said at the time, imagine a road race, where up is definitely ahead.

So, the rider up the road passes the car that's down, which then passes the bunch and goes up, before passing the riders who are down.

Nah. Ahead is up both in racing and in general bunch riding.

[Brucey]

'oil/car up' = vehicle coming from behind

'oil/car down' = vehicle approaching from the front

why? 

-because anything coming from behind is, ahem, 'fundamentally' about to go 'up' something....

cheers

[IanDG]

Up the line from back to front (overtaking). Down the line from front to back (approaching).

[joy of essex]

'oil/car up' = vehicle coming from behind

'oil/car down' = vehicle approaching from the front

why? 

-because anything coming from behind is, ahem, 'fundamentally' about to go 'up' something....

cheers

And  this is what we say in East London and Essex.  There's no slang involved.

[Pedaldog.]

Car/truck/windy Miller ahead.
Car/truck/ windy  miller behind.

Slowing, Stopping, pulling in/out, turning, clear, wait, Moving, passing.... make it clear as if we weren't a Clique of "Proper Cyclists"

[Asterix, the former Gaul.]

Up your nose, down your pants.

Back /behind and ahead /in front are much clearer.

To be honest I'd rather you didn't bother. I can usually hear or see it. Yes point out holes, and shout them if you didn't get your hand off the bars in time. But cars and lorries? It's a road. Of course there's going to be motorised traffic.

On busy roads, yes.  However, if there's a long line of you and a car is behind the back rider will hear it way before the front and the message can be sent very quickly.  Anyway, if the message comes from the back it's fairly obvious the vehicle is behind and vice versa.  I'm not usually worried about oncoming stuff. 

[red marley]

[Andrew]

Is that the direction you're heading? Or the car? Or do those arrows point to the car? 

[drossall]

And why would a rider be up when he's next to the car that is down?

[T42]

Which all goes to show that "up" and "down" are so ambiguous they're not worth using.

[Asterix, the former Gaul.]

Which all goes to show that "up" and "down" are so ambiguous they're not worth using.

Incoming!!

You'll know whether it is said by the rider behind or the rider in front.

I have never liked the sign posted by Jo (sorry Jo) as i never trust the other road user to interpret it correctly (i.e. the same way as I do).   

[red marley]

I too dislike the design of that priority over/to oncoming vehicles sign (and have commented on this forum previously about its ambiguity). But what is not ambiguous about that and other UK road signs is that an upward pointing arrow indicates the direction of travel and a downward pointing one direction of oncoming traffic. For that reason, in my mind 'up' and 'down' have a clear and consistent association with their respective directions in the plane of the road. The only problem is all the other bloody people who think differently.

[Brucey]

re the road sign; I have always thought its meaning ( in its usual form) isn't transparently obvious, either.

However it is as well to remember that the companion sign to that (on the other side of the narrowing) is a red-bordered 'ordering' sign, rather than an 'information' sign with a blue background. So in theory it ought to be obvious to the traffic coming the other way that it is approaching a hazard.

  However personally I think it would be clearer if the companion sign was a conventional 'give way' sign.

Whatever the companion sign says, it doesn't stop anyone (including any traffic ahead of you) from doing something stupid.

cheers

[mattc]

However personally I think it would be clearer if the companion sign was a conventional 'give way' sign.

Whatever the companion sign says, it doesn't stop anyone (including any traffic ahead of you) from doing something stupid.

cheers

Neither does a Give Way sign.

(or a traffic light. Or a speed limit sign. etc etc ... )

[Kim]

Incoming!!

You'll know whether it is said by the rider behind or the rider in front.

Iff you can hear in stereo.

Most of the time I call cars, it's for the benefit of a rider who can't.

[Cudzoziemiec]

re the road sign; I have always thought its meaning ( in its usual form) isn't transparently obvious, either.

However it is as well to remember that the companion sign to that (on the other side of the narrowing) is a red-bordered 'ordering' sign, rather than an 'information' sign with a blue background. So in theory it ought to be obvious to the traffic coming the other way that it is approaching a hazard.

  However personally I think it would be clearer if the companion sign was a conventional 'give way' sign.

Whatever the companion sign says, it doesn't stop anyone (including any traffic ahead of you) from doing something stupid.

cheers

Doesn't the companion sign usually include a conventional Give Way sign and lines in addition to the circular sign?