Police in Surrey are being applauded by cyclists on Twitter after producing a video that shows motorists how to safely overtake people on bikes.
The video, which lasts just over one and a half minutes, uses animation, real-life footage and text to educate motorists on the issue.
We’ve made a little video to help drivers plan and overtake of a cyclist safely.
The same advice would be relevant for overtaking a horse rider.Passing too close is dangerous and scary.
You could be dealt with for driving without due care and attention: 3 points + £100 fine. pic.twitter.com/3TrBWJkuZ2
— RPU – Surrey Police (@SurreyRoadCops) December 13, 2017
Since it was tweeted shortly before noon today, the video has been retweeted more than 200 times.
A number of people congratulated the force on the video, including the Metropolitan Police Service’s Cycle Safety Team.
Nice good
— Cycle Safety Team (@MetCycleCops) December 13, 2017
One Twitter user asked if they could produce a video explaining why it is often safer for cyclists to ride two abreast, something that many motorists mistakenly believe is against the law.
We’ve discussed it. We need a drone and a group of cyclists so a little more challenging, but it’s pencilled in to develop!
— RPU – Surrey Police (@SurreyRoadCops) December 13, 2017
In the replies, the officers behind the account also clarified some issues relating to cyclists’ use of the road.
Yes, most cycle lanes are not maintained suitably for a road bike, so cyclists will not use them because of the risk of punctures, pot holes and debris.
— RPU – Surrey Police (@SurreyRoadCops) December 13, 2017
Mark you have raised many points here…
1. Cyclists can use as much of their lane as they wish, they are a vehicle using the road.
2. It’s not illegal to ride 2 or 3 abreast, most of the time it makes overtaking them easier
3. Riding too fast – as in breaking the speed limit?— RPU – Surrey Police (@SurreyRoadCops) December 13, 2017
Let’s deal with the real issue of drivers doing the same (and a lot worse) first.
The majority of cyclists obey the rules.Motor vehicles pose a much higher threat level.
We wouldn’t ignore an offence which we witnessed on patrol, from any road user.
— RPU – Surrey Police (@SurreyRoadCops) December 13, 2017
Surrey Police have proved to be very proactive on Twitter in dispelling misconceptions about the law as it relates to cyclists, and in October invited a road.cc reader who had submitted a video shot in the county submitted as part of their Near Miss of the Day series to send them the footage.
-1024x680.jpg "“Clear anti-cyclist bias”: Lawsuit filed against Toronto police after cop doored cyclist… before ticketing rider over incident")
31 thoughts on “Surrey Police make video showing drivers how to overtake cyclists safely”
I’m reasonably sure it’s
I’m reasonably sure it’s legal to overtake a cyclist in the zig zag area of a pedestrian crossing, just not a motorist.
Peowpeowpeowlasers wrote:
As answered by No Sweat.
You may have been thinking of double white lines. It’s legal to cross a solid white line to overtake a cyclist doing less than 10 mph. Some drivers, even professional drivers, appear not to know this. Or they know but they can’t tell the difference between me doing 10 mph and 20 mph.
FrankH wrote:
The argument I have seen about this time and again on a particular motoring forum is that 10mph is not literal, but means slow moving, and many believe this, apparently included Themes Valley Police based on the overtakes I have had from police on the Chipping Norton to Enston road (where I average over 30mph in a 50mph limit due to the hill).
John Smith wrote:
No, no: he means any manufacturers of dairy products 🙂
This should be on TV rather
This should be on TV rather than on twitter.
I often bemone the demise of the public information film. A nice little film like this stuck between the adds, possibly including the facts that cyclists have every right to be on the road and that there’s no such thing as road tax, and you never know people may get the idea.
DrG82 wrote:
https://youtu.be/BDtVJiK8Lws
DrG82 wrote:
Remember the advert for cycling in Scotland, it was pulled because a handful of nobbers complained and the wank splats at the ASA went beynd their remit and applied rules they wouldn’t elsewhere.
THINK are supposedly the lot that run road safety campaigns but they are a bunch of victim blaming cretins and not just toward people on bikes. I wouldn’t trust them to put anything together but I think the government should fund the video here to be aired.
Im also not that keen on the Carlton Reid/Chris Boardman video, it contains far too many errors both from a legal point of view (Boardan states 3 abreast is out which is untrue for one) and also appropriate overtaking (not before a rise/hill and/or bend as per the video) and poor positioning by the group of riders when 2 abreast.
He was also kind regarding the HC, he should have said the HC is patently out of date and wrong with respect to the singling out on a busy, narrow or on a bend advice and should be removed.
Singling out at those points creates MORE danger for the cyclists and leads to the point about longer overtaking time for faster vehicles.
On a bend, narrow road or if it’s busy there’s no way am I tucking in to the kerb, strong primary at least and on a left bend that is likely to be more unsighted ahead I’ll be pretty much 3/4 out if not on the dividing line if the bend is really sharp This means not only can I see ahead as far as possible for hazards (as per advice re motorcycling and how police are taught to drive/ride) but it dissaudes nobbers from squeezing past at speed often into unseen oncoming traffic thus raising the danger stakes massively. If I slowed down motorists at that juncture for a few seconds that’s well worth a beep or choice words if it avoids me being offed at high speed because they misjudged the distance or pulled in too soon because of oncoming vehicle or indeed not being caught up in a head on smash.
BehindTheBikesheds wrote:
Whilst I agree with the rest of your post, I thought the Scottish ad was pulled because it was appalling cr@p? (we are talking about ‘the Niceway Code’, aren’t we?)
They’re owning the twats!
They’re owning the twats!
alansmurphy wrote:
What are you trying to say? Have another go at posting something.
cbrndc wrote:
What are you trying to say? Have another go at posting something.— alansmurphy
verb – transitive
to defeat someone severely, as in a verbal argument or in a competition, often to the point of humiliation. To “put someone in their place.”
Would you like me to look up the other word? 😉
bendertherobot wrote:
Kind regards Bender, one was attempting to be down with one’s kids…
alansmurphy wrote:
verb – transitive
to defeat someone severely, as in a verbal argument or in a competition, often to the point of humiliation. To “put someone in their place.”
Would you like me to look up the other word? 😉
— cbrndc Kind regards Bender, one was attempting to be down with one’s kids…— alansmurphy
I’m just not hip or American enough for this site
Peowpeowpeowlasers, bicycles
Peowpeowpeowlasers, bicycles are vehicles too.
The Highway Code rule 191 states;
“You MUST NOT park on a crossing or in the area covered by the
zig-zag lines. You MUST NOT overtake the moving vehicle nearest
the crossing or the vehicle nearest the crossing which has stopped
to give way to pedestrians.
Laws ZPPPCRGD regs 18, 20 & 24, RTRA sect 25(5) & TSRGD regs
10, 27 & 28″
No Sweat wrote:
I believe it was also posted recently that the law only requires you to do this if you are controlling a motorised vehicle.
ChrisB200SX wrote:
So if I, on my velocipede, slow in anticipation of stopping at said crossing to allow a pedestrian to proceed across same, anyone piloting a motorised vehicle can expect to blast through without a care in the world. Doesn’t seem right, guv. “But them’s the law lad.“ (and I agree it is the law as it stands).
Nice one. Well done Surrey
Nice one. Well done Surrey Police; can you have a word with your colleagues in Hampshire who have a less than acceptable attitude to cyclists.
Fab – just Fab! What a good,
Fab – just Fab! What a good, clear video. Thanks Surrey Police 🙂
somebody did many of these
somebody did many of these things the other day, but made one ridiculous error…
overtaking me, left lots of space, was way over the other side of the road, but did it through a 90deg right curve with zero visibility, luckily the oncoming traffic was a few meters back. dont think they gave a moments thought to what could have happened.
Good video Surrey Police, but
Good video Surrey Police, but who’s actually going to see it?
Feel the burn Daily Mail
Feel the burn Daily Mail readers !!!
Highway code rule 191 gets it
Highway code rule 191 gets it wrong with “moving vehicle”.
ZPPPCRGD regs 24
(a)to pass ahead of the foremost part of any other motor vehicle proceeding in the same direction; or
(b)to pass ahead of the foremost part of a vehicle which is stationary for the purpose of complying with regulation 23, 25 or 26.
So it is legal to overtake any moving non motor vehicle int he controlled area but not a stationary vehicle.
I’m talking about the See
I’m talking about the See Horse think cyclist cycling scotland ad which was pulled because the red headed lady wasn’t wearing a plastic hat and that she ‘forced’ the motorist to ‘dangerously’ overtake her in the opposite lane.
It’s that absurd thinking and influence that needs to be broken, 5 people complained and the ASA said the advert was socially irresponsible. Clearly the people working at the ASA at the time were clueless as to the law and what is in the HC despite referring to the HC to back up their point. They also ignored best practise for cycling as advised by DfT, Rospa, Cycling organisations et al and the law on operating a motor vehicle.
Hey couldn’t have been more bias, discriminatory, inaccurate and anti cycling if they tried!
BehindTheBikesheds wrote:
Think you mean “See Cyclist, Think Horse”.
A “See Horse, Think Cyclist” would be encouraging drivers to close pass Dobbin shouting at them that they should use the bloody bridleways and pay road tax.
CygnusX1 wrote:
Think you mean “See Cyclist, Think Horse”.
A “See Horse, Think Cyclist” would be encouraging drivers to close pass Dobbin shouting at them that they should use the bloody bridleways and pay road tax.— BehindTheBikesheds
yeah that way around, my point still stands with respect to attitudes regarding overtaking however.
CygnusX1 wrote:
Think you mean “See Cyclist, Think Horse”.
A “See Horse, Think Cyclist” would be encouraging drivers to close pass Dobbin shouting at them that they should use the bloody bridleways and pay road tax.— BehindTheBikesheds
BehindTheBikesheds wrote:
OK, thanks – I think I missed that one…
Edit: just googled it.
From the Grauniad’s story on it at https://www.theguardian.com/media/2014/jan/29/cycling-scotland-advert-banned
“The ASA said that the Highway Code recommended that it is good practice for cyclists to wear helmets.
“The scene featuring the cyclist on a road without wearing a helmet undermined the[se] recommendations,” said the ASA.
The watchdog was also concerned that in the TV ad the cyclist appeared to be so far toward the centre of the lane that when a car overtook them it “almost had to enter the right lane of traffic”.
“We concluded the ad was socially irresponsible and likely to condone or encourage behaviour prejudicial to health and safety,” the ASA said. “The ad must not be broadcast again in its current form. We told Cycling Scotland that any future ads featuring cyclists should be shown wearing helmets and placed in the most suitable cycling position.””
Kudos to Surrey Police on
Kudos to Surrey Police on those tweets.
I just wish more Police forces were proactive in the matter. My local police force seem decidedly non plussed about cycling incidents, with or without camera footage.
Respek to you blud innit
Respek to you blud innit
One thing we should remember
One thing we should remember with all these ads/vids is that they are not aimed at us, they are aimed at drivers who don’t know how (but often think they do). The most effective presentation of the message has to bear this in mind.
Bmblbzzz wrote:
Some of us also drive so it helps if the ads are correct as it makes it easier to shame other motorists if you can give them a point of reference of why their overtaking of cyclists is so bad.