More Surrey traffic cops truth bombs...this time about riding two abreast; Promising pro rider killed while training; 10,000 RideLondon entries on sale; How to overtake a cyclist; Ok, vroomer; Pro rider of 2021; Nature fights back + more on the live blog

hirsute wrote:

Sounds like a toss up between come to see Palace and come on ride london !

I'd get away with going to see Palace because she'd come with me.

I pulled out all the stops for our 10th wedding anniversary,  so when our 11th came up, i was able to cash in all the brownie points and go see Iron Maiden with a mate  !  Super gig !!     

Seagull2 wrote:

I pulled out all the stops for our 10th wedding anniversary,  so when our 11th came up, i was able to cash in all the brownie points and go see Iron Maiden with a mate  !  Super gig !!     

I failed to plan ahead.

Get a tandem and promise her a day out to remember?!

Surreyrider wrote:

Get a tandem and promise her a day out to remember?!

I have, semi seriously, suggested getting a tandem before, but she wasn't keen.  The best I did was get her to take the kids to Wimbledon to watch me doing Ride London - which is as good excuse as any to post this cute picture of the kids from the Love Wimbledon site (2017 edition, I think)

just got mine having only ridden the first edition of the surrey route in 2013 ( not gettign a ballot place on two other occasions). A bit odd to not know the route before shelling out £89 but at least I have secured a place. Wont have the climbs of Surrey but hope there will be other delights

I failed the ballot in 2018-2019. Managed to get the 46 in 2019 though. Then in 2020 I got in on the lucky dip, and I thought the worst that would happen that year was that they had screwed up the mail merge so my acceptance went to someone else. 

Yes I'm in. Rejected from the ballot every year so not done it since 2015. Looking forward to it. 

On one hand we have Surrey Police (admittedly being quite the outlier amongst most police forces) using logic and common sense to proactively point out it's easier to pass a small group than a long line of riders.

On the other hand we have  Road.cc's very own Roger Irrelevant alter-ego to contribute a load of nonsense.

We also have Road CC's love-in with Surrey Road Cops when in my experience the police here aren't very good at taking action when given examples of poor/dangerous driving. Just saying. 

The truth, however, is that any instruction in the Highway Code, whether it is the current wording of Rule 66 or the intended phrasing, is guidance to the cyclist(s). It is not a statement of entitlement to anybody following them.

The future wording, that invokes the conditionality of moving to single file if it makes it safe to pass the cyclists, is already in the overall spirit of the Highway Code, but the new wording will make it more emphatic.

Moreover, as it currently states, "You should...never ride more than two abreast, and ride in single file on narrow or busy roads and when riding round bends"
'never' is only applied to one part of the guidance, since they re-use the verb without 'never'/'only'. That implies that there are circumstances in which the rule must be balanced against the prevailing circumstances.

In short, it remains the cyclists' decision as to when to ride single/double file (noting that it remains, as Surrey RPU correctly states the truth, guidance and not a legal requirement).

So, Surrey police should actually tell the truth.  Fortunately, it does. 
In doing so, and therefore educating those who are willing to reflect on their own understanding, they may be behind a desk; although let's not rule out the possibility that an officer is actually out in the field using his/her/their mobile device to update Twitter during a pause between attending road deaths caused by careless motorists. In either case, I'm not too bothered if they perform a human necesssity and consume some calories - doughnut or otherwise. But since it suits your bluster to steretype them thus, please continue, it only reflects on the value of your statement.

Quote:

A simple "you're right Max, that's what they should do, but unfortunately some cyclists are too discourteous to do so" would have sufficed.

"that may or may not be the case, Max, but unfortunately it's nothing to do with you; you just have to make sure you drive safely around them an other vulnerable road users" would have been better advice.

The sergeant has previously tweeted that he updates the account in his own time (although there must be times when it is done during work).

Nigel Garage wrote:

The original Twitter poster never said riding 2 abreast was against the law. They simply said that cyclists "should" ride single file. This is correct and completely in line with the Highway code, as well as being aligned to what you've written.

What a strange filter you have. That is not all they said and it does a disservice to the nuance in the tweet that you have conveniently edited out.

Nigel Garage wrote:

This has to stop.

Whenever you're ready to do so, fine with me.

"This has to stop"

Indeed it does.  Please, please switch your comments to the Daily Mail forum or somewhere else as appropriate for your trolling.  Thanks.

Nigel Garage wrote:

It strikes me that some in  Surrey Police simply have too much time on their hands - and far from being under-resourced the force simply has the wrong priorities.

You made this very point only recently and the respondents said very much the same thing at the time as they are making now.

That suggests to me that it's you that has too much time on your hands.

And instead of insulting people or accusing us of indulging in groupthink / hive mind (or whatever other snappy epithets you can muster), why not try posting on a forum or site that isn't populated by regular cyclists? You'd get far less flak and not annoy people with your personal jibes or misguided or deliberately inflammatory comments, repeated ad nauseam. But it appears you get your kicks from trolling cyclists on road.cc.

This is not to suggest that valid criticism of Surrey police, some cyclists' behaviour or even road.cc's news reporting is not welcome, it's simply that your trolling on here is just so boringly predictable and a waste of everyone's time.

Go away Nigel.  Thank you.

Nigel Garage wrote:

What cycling-related posts have you made? As far as I can see, none, along with most of the other people who hang around me like middle-aged groupies.

Groupies tend to be rather keen on the person whom they hang around, not dying for them to get lost and take their nasty, petty, small-minded, spiteful and bigotted opinions with them. Slightly different. 

Nigel Garage wrote:

when I'm a keen cyclist myself, 

 

Nigel Garage wrote:

Why on earth would I post on a non-cycling forum, when I'm a keen cyclist myself, just to appease you?

"Appease" - ha ha, great language slipped in there! Absolutely no need to appease anyone but there's also no need to be a trolling dickhead.

Buy you'll keep on trolling, I'm sure.

Nigel Garage wrote:

What cycling-related posts have you made?

That (deliberately provocative?) question demonstrates that you either 1. have not been paying attention or 2. are simply trying to wind people up. If you looked through my long history of contributing on road.cc you'd find very, very little that's not cycling-related. By contrast, your constructive or useful contributions are sadly eclipsed by the massive pile of trolling bullshit you post in virtually every discussion.

Nigel Garage wrote:

I'd suggest that you buy a bike and get out and see for yourself.

Do you really think I don't ride a bike? Oh, that's beyond hilarious! You've genuinely made me laugh out loud now.

Keep on trolling matey.  Based on this evidence I am beginning to think that it's the only thing you're good at.

Ah, another "strewth bomb" based on wilfully selecting only the parts of the relevant passages that alter the context to suit your own agenda.

"You should...never ride more than two abreast, and ride in single file on narrow or busy roads and when riding round bends" (none of which "friendly easygoing" Mad Max referred to).

The "excessively time resourced" commenter, sitting in a damp cave chewing keyboards, could do so much more with their time, but unfortunately appears too obtuse to do so. 

This has to stop

Best

Username

Ever!

They'll need to change it to Forrage with two Rs soon.  Then back again.

Except that Mad Max does not correctly state the Highway Code - as you must know since you have just quoted the relevant part yourself, and it does not tally with what Mad Max says. [Ironically, I think the proposed changes to the HWC came closer to what Mad Max actually said, though I don't know how they are being implemented in the final version.]  

Ah, well, The Code...

...is more what you'd call Guidelines than actual Rules!

There We Are Then.

I've noted non-cycling acquaintances (some of whom, frankly, need a good dob on the nose) chuntering about cyclists riding three abreast now.  Personally, the only time I ever encounter that is when the two on the front of a group peel off and scuttle off to the back  (rather than a rotating chain), and no-one does that when there are cars around.  I think they are seeing a group two abreast but not directly behind one another, so that it looks like three abreast.  

I just don't get involved in discusison like that any more.  At least I'm not trying to drive down a road with a three-seater sofa sideways behind me

I've never seen three abreast but it would be possible to ride three abreast entirely within the width of an average traffic lane. A tight bunch would be no wider than a small car. 

For that reason, I think the advice has much more to do with the safety of the cyclists themselves (the centre rider in particular, who has no option to bail out without compliance from those either side) than it has any bearing on other road users.  Circumstances may vary.

I see far more comments about cyclists riding three abreast than I have ever seen cyclists actually riding three abreast on a live road. That tells me all I need to know about those comments.

3 or more cyclists riding in echelon(s) looks like abreast from the rear (oooerr missus).  Non-cyclists who dont understand simple perspective would jump to a 3 abreast conclusion fairly readily.

Unless you are slipstreaming for every last watt it makes sense riders are all slightly offset from each other incase a brown short event occurs.  Not that you would expect the average drivist to understand that.