Forum menu
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.
This rather poor video shows
A cyclist not wearing a helmet!
More importantly it shows a Rover 200 series cabriolet, how old is that clip?
“middle of the road/lane” does not mean
They mean two entirely different things, which is the crux of the misunderstanding and the unwarranted abuse. 💡
nothing to bloody do with riding in the middle of the ‘road’ though.
I find it incredible that I understand this yet the educated STW masses still struggle.
sbob - about 3 years old IIRC
Morning all !
There is a discrepancy in language generally, and the vernacular usage dominates - "bloody cyclists in the middle of the road" doesn't mean that literally as we all know (in fact it means "more than 10cm in from the gutter" mostly)
"centre of the carriageway" as twitted by the copper does, however (especially coming from a police force) literally mean the middle of the road - on the image form the original tweet it actually would be on the catseyes. Funnily enough, on the pic they accompanied it with, the cyclist is in the middle of the LANE and not the carriageway, as implied by the dotted line anyway. I do think that's fairly poor and a far better comment would be to say that riding well out from the edge is far safer and is what they recommend
Most folk understand in respect to cyclists "middle of the road" equals " middle of the lane" As in "why were you cycling in the middle of the road" when you are cycling in the middle of the lane. Even the IAM uses the phrase "middle of the road" to mean "Middle of the lane"
https://www.motoring.co.uk/car-news/cyclists-why-do-they-ride-in-the-middle-of-the-road_62617
https://cyclingfallacies.com/en/20/people-should-cycle-at-the-side-of-the-road-not-in-the-middle
https://cycling.today/why-do-cyclists-ride-in-the-middle-of-the-road/
Even the IAM uses the phrase “middle of the road” to mean “Middle of the lane”
Yep - I think we all agree on that TJ
Of all the people using language to describe appropriate road usage, what does/should a police officer mean when he/she says "central in the carriageway"?
Middle of the lane - as does everyone who uses "middle of the road" or "middle of the carriageway"
I can forgive you for not knowing what "carriageway" means ( 😉 ) but not a police force
I know what it means but it is obvious that the police in this case mean middle of the lane. Pedatry rules on this site! And as I pointed out on narrow roads I will actually be in the middle of the carriageway or even to the right of it 😉
😉
trouble is (as I believe is jecca's point) a POLICE FORCE is using specific pseudo-legal terminology ambiguously
If they'd said "road" it'd have been just about OK - but not brilliant, given it's from from a copper
If they'd said "lane" it'd have been fine, except for the lack of lane markings on many rural roads
If they'd said "well out from the edge" (maybe even suggested a distance), it'd have been great