Surrey’s roads policing unit has been running a close pass operation recently, but it’s arguably been making just as much of an impact when discussing its efforts with people on social media.
Officers from the force’s roads policing unit were out educating motorists about close passes yesterday.
E Rota have been out & about enforcing drivers passing cyclists too close.
Ensure you overtake with sufficient safe distance.#OpClosePass pic.twitter.com/uSITWRUmvq
— RPU – Surrey Police (@SurreyRoadCops) October 26, 2017
In one hour, officers stopped six drivers: four for close passes, one for not wearing a seatbelt and one for driving while using a mobile phone.
Not everyone was happy with their efforts, but the Surrey’s roads policing unit is earning a reputation for giving as good as it gets on Twitter.
Please feel free to return your licence to the DVLA with a brief cover note saying ‘Too childish to drive, thanks for the opportunity.’
— RPU – Surrey Police (@SurreyRoadCops) October 27, 2017
A couple of weeks ago the account provided a much-retweeted comeback to one Twitter user who refused to believe that cyclists are allowed to cycle more than two abreast.
Hi Lou,
Find us a piece of law that says cyclists can’t ride two or more abreast, and you can have a years supply of doughnuts from me.
3564— RPU – Surrey Police (@SurreyRoadCops) October 11, 2017
The account’s also debunked popular misconceptions about tax and insurance, as documented at the bottom of one of our recent Near Misses of the Day.
22 thoughts on “Surrey Police suggest Twitter user is ‘too childish to drive’ in response to criticism of its close pass operation”
Ha, ha, excellent!
Ha, ha, excellent!
The whole thread is a great
The whole thread is a great read. I’d feel a lot safer if these guys were in charge of policing roads throughout the UK
HenHarrier wrote:
I agree.
Cambridge police could learn a thing or two from their common sense approach, given that they can’t be bothered to enforce road safety.
Mint!
Mint!
Such a refreshing attitude,
Such a refreshing attitude, and so different to the normal “drivers are always right” seen from some other quarters. I can only conclude that the Surrey police twitter author is a really keen cyclist, with a sense of humour. It is so good to know that some people in authority get it and they aren’t all drivers who think that cyclists have no rights.
Whoever you are, thanks and keep up the good work.
I agree with the sentiment
I agree with the sentiment but find something unsettling about jokes and insults coming from a police Twitter account. Couldn’t they just deliver the same message and maintain a level of professionalism?
Deeferdonk wrote:
Because twitter users like the ones shown would clearly respond so well to polite professionalism…?
brooksby wrote:
Because twitter users like the ones shown would clearly respond so well to polite professionalism…?— Deeferdonk
Do you think they respond well to the above tweets?
Deeferdonk wrote:
Because twitter users like the ones shown would clearly respond so well to polite professionalism…?
— brooksby Do you think they respond well to the above tweets?— Deeferdonk
Oh absolutely: I’m sure they it helps them to laugh at themselves and realise that they were being a twunt. Failing that, it lets everyone else laugh at them. Win/win, in my book 😉
Deeferdonk wrote:
Read what the original tweet was again.
Do you think they respond well to anything?
Given that tweet, and the platform, in what way does the plod response lack professionalism?
davel wrote:
I am sorry, on reflection my opinion was clearly wrong. I am now off to write my own police commissioner a strongly worded email to ask why they don’t expend more resources pwn ing people on social media rather than just clearly explaining the rule of law in a non wacky style.
Deeferdonk wrote:
You could do that.
Or, if you’re more a fan of the direct approach, you could just answer the fucking question.
davel wrote:
Ok. The original tweet you refer to says “f#ck the cyclists”. I don’t believe this deserves a response, and should be reported to Twitter as abuse. I’m sorry if I made you angry, we obviously disagree on this issue, which us fine. Wishing you safe cycling
Deeferdonk wrote:
Not angry: ‘humour’ didn’t come across well. Apologies, and wishing you safe cycling in return.
Deeferdonk wrote:
Personally I’d like to see the original post investigated as a hate crime.
How do we go about setting cycling up as a religion?
Deeferdonk wrote:
Because twitter users like the ones shown would clearly respond so well to polite professionalism…?
— davel Do you think they respond well to the above tweets?— Deeferdonk Read what the original tweet was again. Do you think they respond well to anything? Given that tweet, and the platform, in what way does the plod response lack professionalism?— brooksby I am sorry, on reflection my opinion was clearly wrong. I am now off to write my own police commissioner a strongly worded email to ask why they don’t expend more resources pwn ing people on social media rather than just clearly explaining the rule of law in a non wacky style.— Deeferdonk
In all fairness though, look at how much attention the “wacky” style has gained. If this assists in educating folk then I’m all for it.
Deeferdonk wrote:
Because twitter users like the ones shown would clearly respond so well to polite professionalism…?
— brooksby Do you think they respond well to the above tweets?— DeeferdonkSocial Media 101 – you’re not talking to the original tweeter, but to everyone who reads the thread.
Our local neighbourhood policing team often does tweets about giving someone an early morning alarm call with the big red door knocker – it’s not aimed at criminals, but at reasuring the rest of the audience that the police are out and about taking action in the community.
Given the coverage Surrey Roads Police have got for this tweet, I’d say they’ve hit all their key performance indicators…
Deeferdonk wrote:
Twitter is not considered to be a formal communication platform, so I think it’s entirely appropriate for them to be a bit cheeky and have a bit of fun. As long as they keep their tweets truthful and accurate, then it gets their message more exposure if people share them round because they’re amusing.
Have a look at New South Wales Police force for another example of police using humour to get messages across: https://www.wavefm.com.au/flick/115572-15-of-the-funniest-nsw-police-force-facebook-posts
A far better response woul be
A far better response woul be ” we’ve found where you live and we’re coming round to fuck you (up) and crush your motor”
followed by “Oh sorry, given your reply we thought it was write BS like a crack-head night!”
Since the two abreast tweet
Since the two abreast tweet of Surrey police doesn’t clearly excludes other countries, I guess they could easily turn into experts in free doughnuts delivery.
cyclisto wrote:
Here in Japan it is illegal (“as a general rule”, unless there is a sign specifically allowing it) to cycle two abreast. There is a special word in Japanese which is here translated as “travelling in parallel”
https://goo.gl/fZgWtx
The fine is only 2000 yen (13UKP) but it could be worth some doughnuts.
Someone in a position of
Someone in a position of authority actually putting prejudice car users straight!!
Why couldnt our councils have done this simple thing years ago??
oh yes they are prejudice too and care more about votes and bungs than safe roads and decent transport.