[Closed] Great tweets from Surrey Police about cycling two abreast

That's good stuff, our lot have been doing a lot of close pass work but they post a story on facebook then wander off and it gets overrun by the usual bike hating drivel... So you end up with people showing they don't know the highway code, threatening to run over cyclists, and generally boasting about dangerous driving- on the police's own facebook. And not a word, except basically me and Cynic-Al and TJ calling everyone ****s.

Wish my local force even engaged on twitter - they've never even acknowledged any tweet I've sent.

Some nice schooling going on there about how to ride safely... 😀

So you end up with people showing they don’t know the highway code, threatening to run over cyclists, and generally boasting about dangerous driving- on the police’s own facebook. And not a word, except basically me and Cynic-Al and TJ calling everyone ****s.

Yeah same happened in Hobart when they launched some stuff

the response?

Media & Communications monitor comments on the FB site. If comments are deemed inappropriate, the person involved may be blocked from future access to the site.

All the anti-cyclist drivel comes out of ignorance, as usual. I would wager my bike that none of the haters have EVER ridden a bike on the road other than to cross it maybe.

I have to wonder if our efforts on FB have any impact Northwind (IDK your real name so have not recognised you there, and I've not seen TJ there). I guess they are classic internet hardmen though.

I did notice fewer DM reading-drivers on the last couple of threads.

Surrey Police and West Mids Police are great on Twitter.

Yup, two forces are excellent. Just 41 to go 😀

To be fair have you seen the complete ineptitude of a lot of Cambridge cyclists. Half of them really shouldn't be on the road

"To be fair have you seen the complete ineptitude of a lot of Cambridge cyclists. Half of them really shouldn’t be on the road"

You spelt motorists wrong.

I would wager my bike that none of the haters have EVER ridden a bike on the road other than to cross it maybe.

The impression I get is that they see it (cycling on the highways) as an intrusive, freeloading and somehow 'entitled' affectation that upsets the flow of the normal* truly entitled traffic  With that in mind, why would they ever choose to become the 'enemy'?

*cars and trucks

That Hobart grab though.  I thought Oz (never visited) was supposed to be a live and let live sort of place?   Hopefully it's just a vocal minority.

<h3 id="rule66">Rule 66</h3>
You should

• keep both hands on the handlebars except when signalling or changing gear
• keep both feet on the pedals
• never ride more than two abreast, and ride in single file on narrow or busy roads and when riding round bends

This may not help and although it is a 'should' most people don't understand the highway code to that level.

• keep both feet on the pedals

What even when going down hill and shouting Weeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee

Surrey Police have got good Twitter skills, some of their responses on that thread are first class., I hope their hierarchy continue to allow them to be honest and funny

• keep both hands on the handlebars except when signalling or changing gear

I think the the code could do with an update considering where the majority of gear shifters are nowadays.

That is great work by Surrey, shame that's remarkable!

See, my issue with the tweet, starts with the first sentence:
"Watch out for cyclists on rural roads."

<span style="text-decoration: underline;">Watch out for EVERY ****ing THING when you're driving ANYWHERE</span>. Jeez.

Gotta keep the focus on the victim. Start telling people to just be generally observant, attentive and cautious and they'll no longer have the ready-made opportunity of responding by pointing the finger at someone else and going "yes, but..."

Come on, get with the Road Safety™ program 😉

What's great about the terrible advice?

Riding in the centre of the carriageway on narrow roads sounds dangerous especially for inexperienced riders

Judging by this, and my experience as a cyclist, roadworkers have it worse.

On topic - a recent video of Cycling UK working with Surrey Police:

What’s great about the terrible advice?

Riding in the centre of the carriageway on narrow roads sounds dangerous especially for inexperienced riders

What’s great about the terrible advice?

Riding in the centre of the carriageway on narrow roads sounds dangerous especially for inexperienced riders

The main thing that's great about it is that it counters the received wisdom that people should eff off to the gutter when they're riding a bike so that drivers can barrel past without having to lift their right foot.

As for why not riding in the gutter isn't dangerous:

Firstly it makes you more visible: humans have a cone of perception which narrows at higher speeds. We remain highly capable of processing things directly ahead of us, but less so at the periphery, and as we go faster the range of that periphery grows. If a driver is lax about their attentiveness, the closer you are to the centre of that cone the lower the chance that they'll fail to observe you.

Secondly, assuming you've been observed, it forces a driver to physically react. If you're in the gutter, many drivers will barge past with little or no reduction in their speed or alteration to their direction of travel, which means you get a terrifying close pass. When you're central, they have to move out. Obviously this isn't totally binary: not everyone passes close when you're in the gutter, and some people will still buzz you when you're further out, but it's about getting fewer close/fast passes.

Thirdly, because it requires a deviation of course and usually some braking, it helps in one particularly dangerous scenario, which is when there's no just one but multiple drivers approaching from behind. Having a vehicle in front of your own is both a visual and psychological barrier: people not only can't see everything ahead, they also think less about it if they can see the vehicle in front isn't reacting to anything. Of particular danger is someone following a van or other tall, opaque vehicle: look up the death of Liz Brown to see a perfect example of how tailgating such a vehicle ends in fatality when the driver ahead reacts at the last minute and the driver behind has boxed themselves into an inability to react by reducing their event horizon to next to nothing. (This is why, when I'm driving, if I'm approaching someone on a bike and I've got traffic behind I'll always slow or touch the brake pedal just enough to activate the lights even if the oncoming lane is completely clear, to force a reaction from the vehicle behind: if someone in that chain is focusing on the vehicle ahead rather than further up the road, a physical response exhibited by the vehicle in front advertises the need for their own reaction.)

Fourthly, it covers you for any need to swerve. If you only see a pothole at the last minute (which is common at night) or if a pheasant darts across the road, or whatever, you can swerve to the left. If you're already close to the edge of the road your only option is to swerve right: and when you have no idea how closely the driver behind is planning to pass you, that's a big gamble to take. (I once ended up destroying an inner tube beyond repair in that exact scenario, hitting a pothole hard instead of moving right as a driver was starting a pass: had I been further right, a pothole in front of me could have been avoided without issue.) Similarly, approaching parked cars, pinch points, etc it removes the need to be forced to stop by someone who doesn't care when they overtake.

Fifthly it keeps you away from the road detritus, potholes and ironworks that cause anything from punctures to death (again, not hyperbole: there are real examples).

Sixthly, in urban areas it keeps you away from people on the footway who may not hear a bicycle and thus may not look before stepping into the road, eg when three or more people approach each other in opposite directions.

And it also just upholds the fact that it is, for these reasons and more, perfectly legitimate to do so. Dangerous? No. Driving without paying sufficient attention or without bothering to care about others' safety is dangerous, and that's the case regardless of where in the lane you happen to be on a bicycle.

What’s great about the terrible advice?

Riding in the centre of the carriageway on narrow roads sounds dangerous especially for inexperienced riders

Everything that Bez has so patiently explained in his post ^

Also, if you're not just having a wee troll here you could try following the link in the OP, there's a helpful diagram explaining why it's a good idea.

That Surrey Police tweeterer just has to be a cyclist:
<p class="TweetTextSize js-tweet-text tweet-text" lang="en" data-aria-label-part="0"></p>

<div class="stream-item-header"><span class="FullNameGroup"><strong class="fullname show-popup-with-id u-textTruncate " data-aria-label-part="">RPU - Surrey Police‏<span class="UserBadges"><span class="Icon Icon--verified"><span class="u-hiddenVisually">Verified account</span></span></span><span class="UserNameBreak"> </span></span><span class="username u-dir u-textTruncate" dir="ltr" data-aria-label-part="">@<b>SurreyRoadCops</b></span><small class="time"> <span class="_timestamp js-short-timestamp " data-aria-label-part="last" data-time="1528317091" data-time-ms="1528317091000" data-long-form="true">Jun 6</span></small>
<div class="ProfileTweet-action ProfileTweet-action--more js-more-ProfileTweet-actions">
<div class="dropdown">
<div class="IconContainer js-tooltip" title="More"><span class="u-hiddenVisually">More</span></div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
<div class="js-tweet-text-container">
<p class="TweetTextSize js-tweet-text tweet-text" lang="en" data-aria-label-part="0">Cycle lanes all around the country are generally unsuitable for road bikes.</p>

</div>
<p lang="en" data-aria-label-part="0">(bollocks if all those stupid codes appear)</p>

Yeah, try that again ffs

RPU - Surrey Police‏Verified account @SurreyRoadCops Jun 6
Cycle lanes all around the country are generally unsuitable for road bikes.

Amazing.

He won't be laughing for long if he rides in the centre of a narrow road.

Using words like peleton in the same tweet seems poor form too.

What on earth is good about that tweet? It's crap poorly worded advice and typical social media oneupmanship.

Everything that Bez has so patiently explained in his post

Absolutely. I'm always interested to understand the background of people who advocate "gutter cycling" on here, as clearly this is a MTB forum and there will be riders here who rarely ride on tarmac and have limited experience of road or group riding. I don't think I've ever heard a frequent road cyclist advocate for such behaviour.

My advice to anyone who feels this way (whether motorist or mountain biker) is to hook up with a local cycling club and go out and do a bit of road riding - after all, it hardly seems right to have a strongly held opinion on a topic where you have limited experience. Also, you might enjoy it - I certainly did, after years of making jokes about lycra and shaved legs!

What on earth is good about that tweet?

The reasons why people think it is good advice have been explained to you in great detail. It seems to me that you're more interested in

typical social media one-upmanship.

I'm too slow. Bez you've explained why you shouldn't ride in the gutter. It's not too difficult to think why advising people to ride in the middle of a narrow road might also be a bad idea.

It’s not too difficult to think why advising people to ride in the middle of a narrow road might also be a bad idea.

Could you explain why, and what you advocate instead?

Bez nails it.

It shouldn't be like this, but it is - GENERALLY speaking, the more assertive/aggressive I am when riding on the roads, the safer I am.

Being near to mid-lane didn't stop me coming within an ace of being killed a few months back when a van close passed me at about 60mph - because he was also being overtaken by a car at the same time. On a section of single carriageway with solid white lines and close-in hedges/trees for good measure. People like those need dragging out of their vehicles and beating to within an inch of their lives.....

But, in the round, the more visible and 'wide' you make yourself the safer everyone is, because the merely negligent tend to think a bit more. The totally reckless will always be there - you just have to pray you're not 'the one'.........

It’s not too difficult to think why advising people to ride in the middle of a narrow road might also be a bad idea.

Given that several of the reasons for staying out of the gutter on narrow roads are basically the same as the ones for staying out of the gutter on wider roads, it's really not too hard to think why it's a good idea.

Even on singletrack roads: it gives you a say in when you get passed, because you choose when you pull in; if you hug the hedge, you may not be offered that choice, and the type of person who won't offer you that choice is the type of person who prioritises their speed over your safety, and thus is precisely the sort of person who represents the greatest reason to stay away from the verge until you find a safe place to allow them to pass.

Bez, that was a fantastically comprehensive reply. I might have to steal some of that.

Bez you’ve explained why you shouldn’t ride in the gutter. It’s not too difficult to think why advising people to ride in the middle of a narrow road might also be a bad idea

On a single track road, out of the gutter = in the middle of the road.  QED.

I'm quite shocked to be honest. take the hell-tinted glasses off and ride sensibly forgetting about some imaginary war on the roads

I think the highway code is pretty good advice for most riders and I would never encourage riders to head out into the country lanes riding as a peloton in the centre of a narrow road. I can't believe that any of you would encourage your teenagers or family members to do such a ridiculous thing.

Riding a safe distance from the verge should be the default position.

Eh? It's just one phrase I was using for keeping well away from the edge of the road, ie fairly central on the lane. Away from the verge, out of the gutter, in the middle of the lane, a good distance from the edge of the road, a good bit to the right of over there but still to the left of over there—use what you want. And maybe chill out a bit.

"Being near to mid-lane didn’t stop me coming within an ace of being killed a few months back when a van close passed me at about 60mph – because he was also being overtaken by a car at the same time. On a section of single carriageway with solid white lines and close-in hedges/trees for good measure. People like those need dragging out of their vehicles and beating to within an inch of their lives….."

The car driver probably started his overtake before the van pulled out but because the van driver was likely too lazy to indicate that he was pulling out you ended up with that frightening situation, I've seen just that scenario unfold in front of me before. It frustrates me massively that people don't indicate to overtake as all that happens is the next driver gets a bit closer before he realises he's got to do the same followed by the next one & so on & so on.

riding a safe distance from the verge is not riding in the middle of a narrow road

Yes it is according to all the advice from experts.

My experiences mirror comments above in that the worst closes passes I have had is when by attention has wandered and I have allowed myself to ride too close to the edge of the road.  Riding wide will not stop those close passing deliberately but does give you somewhere to go if/when they do.  what it does do is stop the inattentive close passers and those who think " I can just squeeze thru"

Always an interesting topic for debate. I  MTB and cycle to work pretty much every day for the last 10 years, so more a city rider than a country lane rider. My view is that a lot of drivers are already p**sed with cyclists getting in the way so I always try and stay to the side where possible and let cars go. Might sound odd, but I even get annoyed with road cyclists hogging the road and causing huge tail backs.....its really not that hard to ride single file and then everyone can be friends 🙂

so you will put yourself in danger to avoid holding up cars?  ride wide my friend - then when its safe let the cars past with a big cheery wave.  You are not holding up traffic - you are traffic

Go back to youtube comments eh?

A safe distance from the verge is not in the middle of a narrow road.

According to all the experts it is for the reasons Bez put so elequently.  Now can you cite anyone saying differntly?

How narrow a road in metres are you saying?  single track or one lane each way?

jecca, just to be sure (and this is a serious question), you realise no one is advocating cyclists riding in the actual middle of the road, but just in the middle of their lane of a narrow road, right?

Oh, no idea hey. You didn’t call me a troll now? a forgetful prick it would seem.

Oh, that. Well, you'd let a similar remark go earlier in the thread and I figured your robust language and manner didn't suggest you to be the sensitive type, so I thought I'd drop in a facetious reply to a fairly sensationalist non-sequitur. Evidently I was wrong, sorry about that.

Seems we're arguing over a few inches (matron) but that's one of the points Surrey made in one of their tweets: it really doesn't matter. It's about drivers realising that it's not only perfectly and rightly legal for people to position themselves at any point within the lane when on a bicycle, but that being further out from the edge than some drivers expect is not only advisable as a defensive strategy for the person on the bike, but in certain scenarios it makes life easier for drivers as well.

Can we be friends now?

Surely a safe distance from the verge gets closer to the middle of the road the narrower the road is?

I went down some roads today that a safe distance from the verge was technically the wrong side of the road.

Oh, no idea hey.

You may or may not do. But the problem is:

You shout a lot and call people names, but you’ve not made a single constructive point to defend your position, other than to keep restating it with increasingly antagonistic posts and assume that by shouting louder, we’ll all understand your wisdom.

Bez makes sense.

By way of illustration (as best as I can from available pic)

A friend of ours was so nearly hit cycling right there, just around the bend on the left.  I'd rounded most of the bend, he was about 12 feet behind me.  I heard the sharp squeal of tyres and looked back to see the car missing him as it slewed sideway to a halt.  Back then we customarily cycled single-file about two feet out from the kerb or verge.  In order to be more visible to drivers (whether they are paying attention or not) you can quite easily see that the dark strip in the centre of the lane is about where a slower-moving road-user such as a cyclist would need to be positioned unless wishing to risk not being seen until too late.

Well, that took a turn I didn't see coming.

jecca

A safe distance from the verge is not in the middle of a narrow road.

This is true - it is a turn of phrase that is variable in exact distance and dimension. Depending on the road, the riders and more the term 'in the middle of the road' tends to mean the primary position, which allows a cyclist to present themselves in a way that *hopefully* makes drivers think before trying to squeeze by. I regularly give up the primary and wave drivers by - but I am also regularly positioning myself to stop drivers from overtaking at a dangerous spot for a few seconds or to allow me (and my kids) to manoeuvre.

Forgot to say, (as per my anecdotal example above), a cyclist/cyclists taking the primary there would allow drivers approaching from behind to slow in time before/if they decide to overtake cyclist/s at that point, rather than them 'happening' upon a cyclist/cyclists and then having to make a split-second decision to either emergency brake/endangering cas behind them, or risk colliding with oncoming road users in the other lane by making an 'emergency overtake'.

More than a few times on narrow roads/hill brows/bends etc I've decided to bail and walk/wait rather than have to watch more impatient dummies squeeze-overtaking me regardless (and by doing so they also endanger oncoming traffic).  In retrospect I should have taken primary.  Goes without saying, if there is traffic waiting behind me I pull in where space is available and let them pass.  As would a nice tractor driver 👍🏼

I kind of assumed we were all smart enough to know that no-one was suggesting riding along the cats’ eyes

From the many angry comments on social media it seems that 'in the middle of the road' can mean any number of things 😕

This is true – it is a turn of phrase that is variable in exact distance and dimension. Depending on the road, the riders and more the term ‘in the middle of the road’ tends to mean the primary position, which allows a cyclist to present themselves in a way that *hopefully* makes drivers think before trying to squeeze by. I regularly give up the primary and wave drivers by – but I am also regularly positioning myself to stop drivers from overtaking at a dangerous spot for a few seconds or to allow me (and my kids) to manoeuvre.

You know, I think this is the best post I've read here. I don't think any of us will ride down the middle of the road, holding up miles of traffic while occasionally flicking a lycra-clad finger at the following cars. This is all about defensive riding, taking control of the road away from the car and bringing it back to the (more vulnerable) cyclist. No, this doesn't mean you'll force cars to stay behind you for ever, but it certainly does mean that you, the cyclist, will take control of the situation and make it very clear when it is safe for the car to pass by moving between primary and secondary positions.

This is how I ride too when I'm with my kids and it works well for me.

I’m quite shocked to be honest. take the hell-tinted glasses off and ride sensibly forgetting about some imaginary war on the roads

There are those who want a war ...

As someone said "it shouldn't have to be like his" ... and there are a whole load of times IMHO when one is more appropriate than another to a different set of cyclists

I think the idea that most cyclists are going to be out in a pelaton on their way to tesco or school though just illustrates how different advice is being given to different cyclists by 2 police forces and how the Guildford Cycling UK guy contradicts the tweet of Surrey Police.. they are supposedly working with.

the  whole disagreement seems to be because there are completely different groups of cyclists from those who cycle to school or tesco to those who go out with a club at weekend.

A couple of years ago I was sweeper on a sportive that our club organises. The tail ender was a woman who'd never ridden more than about 30 miles before ( the sportive is 80 miles) and she was struggling on the second big climb, a long, long drag, which is about 40 miles in to the ride.

She was riding right in the gutter, so close to the edge that she was passing to the left of the gully tops! She just wouldn't ride any further out as "it was dangerous". I stayed just behind her about a metre to a metre and a half into the road to provide some visibility to us.

I kind of assumed we were all smart enough to know that no-one was suggesting riding along the cats’ eyes

If you are going to repeat that to the people who ride to Tesco .. using the footpath or cycle path most of the way then how are they going to know what you mean?

Even the folk going to tesco need to get out of the gutter.

ride 1.5  to 2m from the kerb pulling in to 0.75m to let cars past when its safe to do so

but it certainly does mean that you, the cyclist, will take control of the situation and make it very clear when it is safe for the car to pass by moving between primary and secondary positions.

Exactly.  When going up a blind brow of a hill near may house I ride in middle of lane until I can see over the top and then move across if there are no cars coming.  Do exactly the same on the many blind corners that exist where I live.

would say around 80% of the time it works with 20% of times the driver overtaking anyway, completely on the wrong side of the road into a blind hill/bend.  About 2% of the time a car is coming the other way and I get to 'talk' to the driver although I know I am wasting my breath as their only concern is why I was in the middle of the road stopping them from overtaking me....

would say around 80% of the time it works with 20% of times the driver overtaking anyway

Just last week in the Lake District, riding up the east side of Derwen****er with the family, I took primary position descending down a short hill as there were clearly cars coming the other way. The car behind overtook anyway, got level with us and realised that he couldn't push in at the front of us before meeting the cars heading towards him, so just stopped on the wrong side of the road, nose to nose with the now-stationary double-decker bus coming the other way. I rode past and gave him a "what did you think would happen?" gesture with that most British of rebukes - the shake of the head. I might even have tutted.

Bloody horrid section of road, but had no choice as it linked in with some other riding we were doing so had to put up with it, but it was a good example of where a bit of defensive cycling protected us from a driver that, otherwise, would have squeezed past between us and a bus on a road that didn't have space for all of us at the same time.

single file can still mean a safe distance from the verge, centrally in your lane if you have one marked. defensive positioning and primary positioning

are we all reading a different tweet. it looks like poor advice to me, more about scoring points on social media rather than clearing up misconceptions about riding 2 abreast or primary positioning but you all seem to be reading it as though it says 'primary position/safe distance from the verge/2 abreast can be safer and easier for others'.  Wouldn't they have been better just to say that? talking about pelotons and being in the middle of narrow roads doesn't seem like a win to me, they tried to be clever and it looks like crap advice as written

bezb, crappy apology accepted. I assumed someone who goes around calling people names on the internet for no reason would have accepted a response without any further mention, im sorry I was wrong about that

If you are going to repeat that to the people who ride to Tesco .. using the footpath or cycle path most of the way then how are they going to know what you mean?

Well, I just thought, given that it was a partially jokey comment as suggested by the smiley, that I'd choose light-hearted conciseness over universality. Clearly footways and cycleways are different, but clearly footways and cycleways shouldn't be carrying motor vehicles, so they don't demand the same level of defensive behaviour, and I don't think anyone in this thread or on Twitter thought the context was either of those things.

  Wouldn’t they have been better just to say that?

Yes, hence most of the tweets laying into them and this thread highlighting that.

bezb, crappy apology accepted.

I am intrigued as to whether you will apologise for your language towards bez.

but you all seem to be reading it as though it says ‘primary position/safe distance from the verge/2 abreast can be safer and easier for others’. Wouldn’t they have been better just to say that?

If you read their second tweet, the image within it basically does say that.

I kind of assumed we were all smart enough to know that no-one was suggesting riding along the cats’ eyes

I hoped so, too, but the argument seemed so bizzare I thought I'd check...

bezb, crappy apology accepted. I assumed someone who goes around calling people names on the internet for no reason would have accepted a response without any further mention, im sorry I was wrong about that

Jecca, hold on ten minutes before replying please as I’ve run out of biscuits!

I wasn't going to comment on this thread, but I just love the "I misinterpreted something and I'm going to keep misinterpreting it repeatedly even though everyone else has interpreted it differently" attitude of some people.

It also illustrates the massive chasm between those who regularly ride on busy and/or narrow roads and those that think they know best despite little to no experience of road riding. Many of the things that you can do to make your time on the road safer are counter-intuitive, but experience teaches you that these things work far better than the alternative.

riding two abreast the outside rider is in the same road position as a single rider in primary position.

Twice this week I've been driving up steep, winding roads in the district and encountered cyclists riding up the hill. As I've sat behind them waiting for the sight lines to improve, I have had other drivers come up behind me and gesticulate at me for failing to pass them on a bend or blind summit. They both got a hand signal in return.

Which is why my next car will be

http://www.jamesbondlifestyle.com/news/aston-martin-db5-goldfinger-gadgets-sale

come on mods.. if it isn't fair and balanced moderation then you end up with trolls desperately trying to offend by skirting the rules, see all the insults in the thread, calling someone a prick for calling me a troll is a pretty equal insult in my book

I don't mind being banned for retaliation but lets see all the insults removed if you are going to start removing minor retaliation posts with no warning.

I kind of assumed we were all smart enough to know that no-one was suggesting riding along the cats’ eyes

Then why not just say what you mean?

The middle of your lane is quite different from the middle of the road or carriageway.

It is interesting that such errors in language would normally be pounced on by the pack in an argument, but here they are accepted as they suit the pack's agenda. Quite a few of you are coming across as arseholes TBH.

Then why not just say what you mean?

The middle of your lane is quite different from the middle of the road or carriageway.

Of course. Which is why I did say what I meant. The only time I made any reference to the middle of the road (other than in the statement you quoted) was implicitly, in response to someone else using that phrase in the context of a "narrow road". I took the latter to mean a singletrack road, where the middle of the lane and the middle of the carriageway are one and the same.

Either way, what I meant all along, if you want it quantified, was a position somewhere between the normal wheel tracks of a motor vehicle travelling in the same direction. Often to the left of that range, but at times in the middle of it or (as I position myself when riding with a child) into the right half of it.

With that clarification, can we move on and stop trying to pick arguments for the sake of arguing?

calling someone a prick for calling me a troll is a pretty equal insult in my book

But you did rock up with the question "what's so good about this terrible advice?" Which, to me at least, seemed to fairly strongly suggest you'd made up your mind about the advice and just wanted an argument.

I gave you a considerate reply to your question regardless, and your reply to that was to dismiss it as some "war on the roads" nonsense, which—since it's a well-worn meme employed to wind people up and it bore no relation to the reply I gave—cemented my opinion from your first post.

bez you keep missing the point, let me return the lecture, I hope mine is a little more relevant.. :o) consider it a friendly informative post if possible ;o) -

It's my opinion that it 'is' terrible advice as written, you have no right to call me names because you disagree with that opinion or you and many others wrongly assumed it has something to do with me not understanding primary/defensive/safe road riding in laned roads. I didn't need any irrelevant lecture about riding in gutters and you missed the irony when questioning my opinion on your posts. You called me a TROLL for no reason other than your own wrong assumptions about where i stand on road safety for cyclists. You fabricated a justification in your head and still feel justified because I said 'what's great about that terrible advice' (although I rocked up apparently??)

I had a few minor issues with the tweet that stopped me from thinking it was 'great'
If the surrey police want to score points over a neighbouring force i think they should have worded their tweet a bit better, as written it is terrible road safety advice. suggesting to the masses on twitter that cyclists should ride in the middle of narrow 'roads' is very poorly worded if they were looking for a win in my opinion

Cambridgeshire has loads of narrow roads that aren't clearly marked laned roads but are wider than one car singletrack lanes
I'm pretty sure Surrey has the same. fantastic quieter roads for cycling, motorbikes, driving, horses, runners and walkers but can be very dangerous because they are reasonably wide and some numpties spoil it..go into any classroom of teenagers in my county and tell them to ride in the middle of the 'road' and pelotons are safer and see how long it takes before you have your first death. these roads are dangerous because of oncoming cars too, it's not just about being overtaken

I really don't want road safety squabbled about between forces on Twitter as if they are average joes on STW, if they can't act like responsible adults and sort out a united front on road safety then what hope is there for the minority but significant group of crappy road users
the highway code is still a very good base of knowledge for most road users.

I agree there was room for extra considered opinions on road safety and info from Surrey but they chose to act like social media whores and rubbish highway code advice with a poorly worded tweet of their own, some of you loved it, I didn't / don't!

I might know what they meant to say, you obviously know what they meant, you wrote a frickin essay about riding in the gutter :o) but nobody who uses narrow roads in my county would ever rubbish highway code advice with that very poorly worded tweet.  I didn't agree that it was a great tweet from Surrey police. It's terrible advice as written

THIS IS MY OPINION. Thank you in advance for respecting it :o)

It may be your opinion but its sheer arrant nonsense based on your own lack of understanding

Riding wide means you can see further and been seen for further - oncoming cars as well.  On the sort of roads you mention - one and a half car wide the safest position is in the middle of the road - or just to the left of it varied by moving left on right handers and right on left handers to maximise your visibility

riding narrow means your visibilty  is dangerously compromised

This rather poor video shows it in the last few seconds - the road goes from car width each way to wide single track.  In the last few seconds as you can see I am right over on the right on a car and a half wide section so I can see further round the corner - thus I see the car coming towards me earlier thus I can take avoiding action earlier

Did you actually read what I posted tjagain? for clarity, riding wide is great and I am in favour of riding wide, i love riding wide.. nobody should be in the gutter, nobody in this thread has suggested anyone should be riding narrow, I want to see all riders riding wide, sometimes defensively, I love the primary position, i lecture many, including family members on riding wide

nothing to bloody do with riding in the middle of the 'road' though.

thanks for the video tjagain, very good visibility on that road for that type of riding from a very experienced cyclist though. we won't be seeing advice like that in the highway code for a very very long time. not the riding for the masses imo

I can't help but think, as I've written many a time before on various online places, that we really should be making use of modern technology to enforce motorised vehicle speed limits... Rather than trusting the modern day hoards (compared to when many of us here were kids in the 1970s) to keep to the speed limits in their typically 1.5+ tonne vehicles of convenience, even when there are no speed cameras or police around.

Transmitters along the carriageways, attached to the likes of streetlights, trees etc. and receivers on vehicles that limit the max speed they can do. The government then losses out on speed fine tax, but they could simply offset it with new extra taxation on using vehicles (especially on short journeys of less than ~5 miles IMO).

Even if there weren't cyclists on them, is it reasonable for the max speed on narrow roads to be more than 20mph, where there could be pedestrians walking on the pavement-less verges; horses etc.?

We already have 20mph zones near schools and the other odd place in urban areas, which if vehicles are abiding by, reduces the collision speed and odds of a fatal injury if they hit vulnerable citizens. There would still be exceptions, but such a speed limit would reduce the number of cyclists "holding up road tax payers" because many road cyclists are capable of travelling at ~20mph.

@jecca - "middle of the road/lane" does not mean the mathematical middle to within a couple of mm. The primary position is middle of the road.