Cyclists riding side-by-side is biggest gripe for rural drivers claims survey

nbrus wrote:

And, no I don't believe it is totaly legal to do so ... that seems to be a myth based on incorrect interpretation of what constitutes a 'busy' road

Well, I guess what is 'legal' is undefined until there's a test case in court to decide what constitutes a 'busy road'. Until then, I don't see that your belief about what that means necesarily trumps anyone else's.

FluffyKittenofTindalos wrote:

nbrus wrote:

And, no I don't believe it is totaly legal to do so ... that seems to be a myth based on incorrect interpretation of what constitutes a 'busy' road

Well, I guess what is 'legal' is undefined until there's a test case in court to decide what constitutes a 'busy road'. Until then, I don't see that your belief about what that means necesarily trumps anyone else's.

Given that the original wording said the cyclists should move into single file to make it easier for other vehicles to overtake (I can't remember the exact wording or when it was changed) I would think it most likely that the wording was changed because there are some situations where riding two-abreast makes it easier for other vehicles to overtake (e.g. group rides, where a shorter group is easier to overtake). Also, on quiet straight roads there would be plenty of visibility and it would be easy to overtake two-abreast cyclists without requiring them to single out.

So both old and new wording are intended to make it easier for other vehicles to overtake and the new wording is to now make it legal to ride two-abreast in those situations where it makes sense. I don't believe it was intended that cyclists should be holding up traffic because they have their own interpretation of 'busy' and it is never 'busy' enough to move into single file. 

Those that do ride two-abreast regardless of other traffic are just taking the p*ss really, and its not surprising it annoys other road users.

nbrus wrote:

FluffyKittenofTindalos wrote:

nbrus wrote:

And, no I don't believe it is totaly legal to do so ... that seems to be a myth based on incorrect interpretation of what constitutes a 'busy' road

Well, I guess what is 'legal' is undefined until there's a test case in court to decide what constitutes a 'busy road'. Until then, I don't see that your belief about what that means necesarily trumps anyone else's.

Given that the original wording said the cyclists should move into single file to make it easier for other vehicles to overtake (I can't remember the exact wording or when it was changed) I would think it most likely that the wording was changed because there are some situations where riding two-abreast makes it easier for other vehicles to overtake (e.g. group rides, where a shorter group is easier to overtake). Also, on quiet straight roads there would be plenty of visibility and it would be easy to overtake two-abreast cyclists without requiring them to single out.

So both old and new wording are intended to make it easier for other vehicles to overtake and the new wording is to now make it legal to ride two-abreast in those situations where it makes sense. I don't believe it was intended that cyclists should be holding up traffic because they have their own interpretation of 'busy' and it is never 'busy' enough to move into single file. 

Those that do ride two-abreast regardless of other traffic are just taking the p*ss really, and its not surprising it annoys other road users.

Again though, that's just your belief, and doesn't mean very much.

I never ride two-abreast on account of not knowing any other cyclists, mind you. Most people I know would rather be on a bus. So this is all academic any way.

As for what annoys other road users - a lot of things about motorists annoy me, particularly their being allowed to park in places where they really shouldn't be - what is supposed to follow from that? It's in the nature of the world that people will constantly annoy each other, unfortunately. We live in a world designed so as to put people into conflict (and not just on the roads).

FluffyKittenofTindalos wrote:

Again though, that's just your belief, and doesn't mean very much.

And what is your definition of 'busy' ... and no it isn't just my 'belief' ... it fits with the highway code (past and present). It seems more the case that others' ignorance of what constitutes 'busy' (i.e. never) is a belief self-motivated opinion more than it is fact and isn't backed up by the highway code.

nbrus wrote:

... the wording in the highway code used to say that cyclists should make it easier for other vehicles to pass by moving to single file. That wording was changed to say cyclists should ride in single file on narrow or busy roads. The intent hasn't changed, but cyclists (including Boardman) seem to believe that it is never busy enough to ride in single file. That is wrong just as drivers paying 'road tax' is wrong (its vehicle excise duty).

Nope, a lane should always be wide enough for two cycles, otherwise it's not wide enough for one car. Riding single file doesn't make it easier to overtake.
If we had to ride single file then we'd never be able to overtake, the extension to that is motor vehicles wouldn't be allowed to overtake either.  It just wouldn't work for anyone.

ChrisB200SX wrote:

Nope, a lane should always be wide enough for two cycles, otherwise it's not wide enough for one car. Riding single file doesn't make it easier to overtake.
If we had to ride single file then we'd never be able to overtake, the extension to that is motor vehicles wouldn't be allowed to overtake either.  It just wouldn't work for anyone.

Well, I've never read so much bollocks ... dear, dear. If you want to risk your life riding two-abreast then you go ahead.

nbrus wrote:

ChrisB200SX wrote:

Nope, a lane should always be wide enough for two cycles, otherwise it's not wide enough for one car. Riding single file doesn't make it easier to overtake.
If we had to ride single file then we'd never be able to overtake, the extension to that is motor vehicles wouldn't be allowed to overtake either.  It just wouldn't work for anyone.

 

Well, I've never read so much bollocks ... dear, dear. If you want to risk your life riding two-abreast then you go ahead.

Presumably, then, you never take primary position when out alone (noting, of course that two abreast normally involves the ouside rider being in what is effectively primary).

Jitensha Oni wrote:

nbrus wrote:

ChrisB200SX wrote:

Nope, a lane should always be wide enough for two cycles, otherwise it's not wide enough for one car. Riding single file doesn't make it easier to overtake.
If we had to ride single file then we'd never be able to overtake, the extension to that is motor vehicles wouldn't be allowed to overtake either.  It just wouldn't work for anyone.

 

Well, I've never read so much bollocks ... dear, dear. If you want to risk your life riding two-abreast then you go ahead.

Presumably, then, you never take primary position when out alone (noting, of course that two abreast normally involves the ouside rider being in what is effectively primary).

I'm assuming your are making a point about safety. Yes, I do take primary when I need to, but that is entirely different to cycling two abreast. When taking primary you should look behind to make sure it is safe, then move out. You would then pull back in when there is no longer a need to be in primary.

Also, when you take primary position it is usually at a place where you don't want to be overtaken as it would be unsafe ... usually when a junction or some narrowing of the road occurs ... and it is usually also obvious to (some) drivers that you might need to make such a manouver, and they will be expecting it ... it will also be difficult for another vehicle to attempt an overtake in such a location. You would never be permanently in the primary position.

Cycling two-abreast puts one cyclist permanently in the primary position and at risk of being hit from behind because drivers will take risks to avoid slowing to a crawl ... if they misjudge things and/or weren't paying attention, then a collision would be difficult to avoid as there may be no where for them to move as you will be taking up the whole lane and there may be approaching vehicles in the opposite lane.

Cycling on a dual carraigway is also much more dangerous than a normal road because if both lanes are used, then there is nowhere for the vehicle on the inside lane to go, so they would need to emergency brake if they misjudged things, or only noticed you too late. Granted you will get away with it for a while, but your chances of bing hit are considerably higher and the chances of annoying other vehicles wanting to pass are a certainty. It is perfectly fine to cycle two-abreast, but single file when traffic approaches to let them past.

nbrus wrote:

Jitensha Oni wrote:

nbrus wrote:

ChrisB200SX wrote:

Nope, a lane should always be wide enough for two cycles, otherwise it's not wide enough for one car. Riding single file doesn't make it easier to overtake.
If we had to ride single file then we'd never be able to overtake, the extension to that is motor vehicles wouldn't be allowed to overtake either.  It just wouldn't work for anyone.

 

Well, I've never read so much bollocks ... dear, dear. If you want to risk your life riding two-abreast then you go ahead.

Presumably, then, you never take primary position when out alone (noting, of course that two abreast normally involves the ouside rider being in what is effectively primary).

I'm assuming your are making a point about safety. Yes, I do take primary when I need to, but that is entirely different to cycling two abreast. When taking primary you should look behind to make sure it is safe, then move out. You would then pull back in when there is no longer a need to be in primary.

Also, when you take primary position it is usually at a place where you don't want to be overtaken as it would be unsafe ... usually when a junction or some narrowing of the road occurs ... and it is usually also obvious to (some) drivers that you might need to make such a manouver, and they will be expecting it ... it will also be difficult for another vehicle to attempt an overtake in such a location. You would never be permanently in the primary position.

Cycling two-abreast puts one cyclist permanently in the primary position and at risk of being hit from behind because drivers will take risks to avoid slowing to a crawl ... if they misjudge things and/or weren't paying attention, then a collision would be difficult to avoid as there may be no where for them to move as you will be taking up the whole lane and there may be approaching vehicles in the opposite lane.

Cycling on a dual carraigway is also much more dangerous than a normal road because if both lanes are used, then there is nowhere for the vehicle on the inside lane to go, so they would need to emergency brake if they misjudged things, or only noticed you too late. Granted you will get away with it for a while, but your chances of bing hit are considerably higher and the chances of annoying other vehicles wanting to pass are a certainty. It is perfectly fine to cycle two-abreast, but single file when traffic approaches to let them past.

I seriously doubt any cyclist has ever "annoyed a vehicle". What we probably do is annoy some drivers - probably the same ones who shout at birds, sheep and quite possibly hedgerows. Yeah, grovelling in the gutter will reduce their anger a tiny bit, but helps nothing when they fail to see you, or cut in after attempting an imbecilic manoeuvre. At least two abreast or single in primary I'm vulnerable only to the  psychopaths ( a minority) and not to the inattentive half- blind eejits ( quite possibly most of them some days).

oldstrath wrote:

I seriously doubt any cyclist has ever "annoyed a vehicle". What we probably do is annoy some drivers - probably the same ones who shout at birds, sheep and quite possibly hedgerows. Yeah, grovelling in the gutter will reduce their anger a tiny bit, but helps nothing when they fail to see you, or cut in after attempting an imbecilic manoeuvre. At least two abreast or single in primary I'm vulnerable only to the  psychopaths ( a minority) and not to the inattentive half- blind eejits ( quite possibly most of them some days).

I think you may have things wrong  ... the eejits, inattentives and pshychopaths will get you regardless of your position on the road.

nbrus wrote:

oldstrath wrote:

I seriously doubt any cyclist has ever "annoyed a vehicle". What we probably do is annoy some drivers - probably the same ones who shout at birds, sheep and quite possibly hedgerows. Yeah, grovelling in the gutter will reduce their anger a tiny bit, but helps nothing when they fail to see you, or cut in after attempting an imbecilic manoeuvre. At least two abreast or single in primary I'm vulnerable only to the  psychopaths ( a minority) and not to the inattentive half- blind eejits ( quite possibly most of them some days).

I think you may have things wrong  ... the eejits, inattentives and pshychopaths will get you regardless of your position on the road.

Well why ride on roads at all then? I'll agree nothing is perfect, but at least two abreast you're in a position they do expect to see things, and it makes them decide how to overtake, if only to avoid the paperwork.

nbrus wrote:

Jitensha Oni wrote:

nbrus wrote:

ChrisB200SX wrote:

Nope, a lane should always be wide enough for two cycles, otherwise it's not wide enough for one car. Riding single file doesn't make it easier to overtake.
If we had to ride single file then we'd never be able to overtake, the extension to that is motor vehicles wouldn't be allowed to overtake either.  It just wouldn't work for anyone.

 

Well, I've never read so much bollocks ... dear, dear. If you want to risk your life riding two-abreast then you go ahead.

Presumably, then, you never take primary position when out alone (noting, of course that two abreast normally involves the ouside rider being in what is effectively primary).

I'm assuming your are making a point about safety. Yes, I do take primary when I need to, but that is entirely different to cycling two abreast. When taking primary you should look behind to make sure it is safe, then move out. You would then pull back in when there is no longer a need to be in primary.

Also, when you take primary position it is usually at a place where you don't want to be overtaken as it would be unsafe ... usually when a junction or some narrowing of the road occurs ... and it is usually also obvious to (some) drivers that you might need to make such a manouver, and they will be expecting it ... it will also be difficult for another vehicle to attempt an overtake in such a location. You would never be permanently in the primary position.

Cycling two-abreast puts one cyclist permanently in the primary position and at risk of being hit from behind because drivers will take risks to avoid slowing to a crawl ... if they misjudge things and/or weren't paying attention, then a collision would be difficult to avoid as there may be no where for them to move as you will be taking up the whole lane and there may be approaching vehicles in the opposite lane.

Cycling on a dual carraigway is also much more dangerous than a normal road because if both lanes are used, then there is nowhere for the vehicle on the inside lane to go, so they would need to emergency brake if they misjudged things, or only noticed you too late. Granted you will get away with it for a while, but your chances of bing hit are considerably higher and the chances of annoying other vehicles wanting to pass are a certainty. It is perfectly fine to cycle two-abreast, but single file when traffic approaches to let them past.

nope, I will ALWAYS take primary when there is traffic coming the other way in their lane...

as far as I'm concerned, if there is oncoming traffic, then the motons behind must wait until it is safe and then I will move back to secondary.

There is no way I'm going to let them squeeze past me...

Paul_C wrote:

nbrus wrote:

Jitensha Oni wrote:

nbrus wrote:

ChrisB200SX wrote:

Nope, a lane should always be wide enough for two cycles, otherwise it's not wide enough for one car. Riding single file doesn't make it easier to overtake.
If we had to ride single file then we'd never be able to overtake, the extension to that is motor vehicles wouldn't be allowed to overtake either.  It just wouldn't work for anyone.

 

Well, I've never read so much bollocks ... dear, dear. If you want to risk your life riding two-abreast then you go ahead.

Presumably, then, you never take primary position when out alone (noting, of course that two abreast normally involves the ouside rider being in what is effectively primary).

I'm assuming your are making a point about safety. Yes, I do take primary when I need to, but that is entirely different to cycling two abreast. When taking primary you should look behind to make sure it is safe, then move out. You would then pull back in when there is no longer a need to be in primary.

Also, when you take primary position it is usually at a place where you don't want to be overtaken as it would be unsafe ... usually when a junction or some narrowing of the road occurs ... and it is usually also obvious to (some) drivers that you might need to make such a manouver, and they will be expecting it ... it will also be difficult for another vehicle to attempt an overtake in such a location. You would never be permanently in the primary position.

Cycling two-abreast puts one cyclist permanently in the primary position and at risk of being hit from behind because drivers will take risks to avoid slowing to a crawl ... if they misjudge things and/or weren't paying attention, then a collision would be difficult to avoid as there may be no where for them to move as you will be taking up the whole lane and there may be approaching vehicles in the opposite lane.

Cycling on a dual carraigway is also much more dangerous than a normal road because if both lanes are used, then there is nowhere for the vehicle on the inside lane to go, so they would need to emergency brake if they misjudged things, or only noticed you too late. Granted you will get away with it for a while, but your chances of bing hit are considerably higher and the chances of annoying other vehicles wanting to pass are a certainty. It is perfectly fine to cycle two-abreast, but single file when traffic approaches to let them past.

nope, I will ALWAYS take primary when there is traffic coming the other way in their lane... as far as I'm concerned, if there is oncoming traffic, then the motons behind must wait until it is safe and then I will move back to secondary. There is no way I'm going to let them squeeze past me...

It depends how wide the lane is.

nbrus wrote:

ChrisB200SX wrote:

Nope, a lane should always be wide enough for two cycles, otherwise it's not wide enough for one car. Riding single file doesn't make it easier to overtake.
If we had to ride single file then we'd never be able to overtake, the extension to that is motor vehicles wouldn't be allowed to overtake either.  It just wouldn't work for anyone.

Well, I've never read so much bollocks ... dear, dear. If you want to risk your life riding two-abreast then you go ahead.

Could you please post a link to someone being killed by riding two abreast. I can find plenty of links about people being killed by people driving cars.

alansmurphy wrote:

nbrus wrote:

ChrisB200SX wrote:

Nope, a lane should always be wide enough for two cycles, otherwise it's not wide enough for one car. Riding single file doesn't make it easier to overtake.
If we had to ride single file then we'd never be able to overtake, the extension to that is motor vehicles wouldn't be allowed to overtake either.  It just wouldn't work for anyone.

Well, I've never read so much bollocks ... dear, dear. If you want to risk your life riding two-abreast then you go ahead.

Could you please post a link to someone being killed by riding two abreast. I can find plenty of links about people being killed by people driving cars.

Riding two abreast is no more dangerous - in fact, it's safer in some instances.

A lot of the riding I do is on country roads that are wide enough for two cars to pass each other safely, but no way near wide enough for one car to overtake another.

In this instance, I'll drop back to single file and wave the car on once it's safe. There would *physically* be just enough room for the car to overtake whilst riding two abreast, but it wouldn't be safe. Therefore, dropping back to single file is the most sensible option, as it leaves plenty of room for a car to overtake safely.

I do quite often see, and get frustrated by, one of the local cycling clubs that attracts older riders when I'm out cycling. They tend to ride two abreast (as they are entitled by law), but they ride particularly slowly (I mean, less than 15mph on the flat, slowly). When I'm cycling up (usually 25mph on the flat) behind them, it's a struggle to get by, as they tend to sprawl out over the road.

As I mentioned, they are perfectly entitled by law to ride two abreast (and they can ride at whatever speed they want, for that matter) - just as horses are entitled by law to ride two abreast and just as tractors are entitled to drive slowly on main roads (they are obliged to pull over - but don't legally have to).

All it takes is some common sense from all road users. I could happily cycle around the countryside all day two abreast, not stopping in laybys and hold up traffic for ages along country roads. But I don't. Usually, I don't even have to slow down, just pull over slightly at a layby and wave cars on - and usually, I get an appreciative wave in return.

nbrus wrote:

ChrisB200SX wrote:

Nope, a lane should always be wide enough for two cycles, otherwise it's not wide enough for one car. Riding single file doesn't make it easier to overtake.
If we had to ride single file then we'd never be able to overtake, the extension to that is motor vehicles wouldn't be allowed to overtake either.  It just wouldn't work for anyone.

Well, I've never read so much bollocks ... dear, dear. If you want to risk your life riding two-abreast then you go ahead.

thanks mum!

nbrus wrote:

Its not illegal to cycle two-abreast but the wording in the highway code used to say that cyclists should make it easier for other vehicles to pass by moving to single file. That wording was changed to say cyclists should ride in single file on narrow or busy roads. The intent hasn't changed, but cyclists (including Boardman) seem to believe that it is never busy enough to ride in single file. That is wrong just as drivers paying 'road tax' is wrong (its vehicle excise duty).

I don't shout at wildlife ... I just enjoy the view.

I belueve the intent hete is ride single file when roads ate narrow (so narrow there is no centre line) or so wide that a car can pass without crossing the centre line.

I don't believe the intent is that overtakes which are dangerously close (less than 1m, due to the proximity of oncoming traffic) should be facilitated when the road is busy.

When you have the driver of a vehicle that is only 0.5m narrower than the lane complaining about two abreast I can only infer they want to carry out a dangerous overtake but are frustrated in doing so.

nbrus wrote:

That is wrong just as drivers paying 'road tax' is wrong (its vehicle excise duty).

Actually it is now 'vehicle tax' 

https://www.gov.uk/calculate-vehicle-tax-rates

Simon E wrote:

The fact that so many drivers find cyclists riding two-abreast particularly annoying speaks volumes about their wrongheaded idea of who belongs on the road.

My biggest bug bear on country roads is the muppet who refuses to reverse when they've just passed a passing place.

Otherwise country roads are all about chilling out and who really gives a fuck if you're held up by cyclists/a tractor/horses, sit back and enjoy the scenery.

Simon E wrote:

The fact that so many drivers find cyclists riding two-abreast particularly annoying speaks volumes about their wrongheaded idea of who belongs on the road.

I think 2 cyclists riding 2 abreast should just do the simple courtesy of going single file when a car approaches from behind. It is courtious and creates a bit of good feeling between the 2 types of road user. it is simple to do and I often get a favourable accknowledgement. I can understand why so many car drivers get irritated by cyclists who arrogantly and blatently continue 2 abreast, so please can we all show cars some respect, we don't own the road, we share it!  

cyclisto wrote:

I disagree with riding abreast especially when we are speaking just for two cyclists. It is illegal in other countries, riding abreast is mostly about recreational cycling versus people wanting to go to their jobs and doing their errands and it is really really dangerous. I practically never go for recreational riding apart from touring when I will have costantly to remind my overenergetic buddy to keep single file.

I don't understand why you think it's so dangerous to ride two abreast. When overtaking, cars should be giving cyclists the same room as cars, so a car should be going into the other lane. Riding abreast simply forces the issue and prevents close passes as cars struggle to fit between another car and a single cyclist. Also, side-by-side cyclists are more visible and as a bonus, less time is taken for a car to overtake them.

hawkinspeter wrote:

cyclisto wrote:

I disagree with riding abreast especially when we are speaking just for two cyclists. It is illegal in other countries, riding abreast is mostly about recreational cycling versus people wanting to go to their jobs and doing their errands and it is really really dangerous. I practically never go for recreational riding apart from touring when I will have costantly to remind my overenergetic buddy to keep single file.

I don't understand why you think it's so dangerous to ride two abreast. When overtaking, cars should be giving cyclists the same room as cars, so a car should be going into the other lane. Riding abreast simply forces the issue and prevents close passes as cars struggle to fit between another car and a single cyclist. Also, side-by-side cyclists are more visible and as a bonus, less time is taken for a car to overtake them.

Well this is a good thought but it has a fundemental flaw: that there is an ideal world where drivers will keep the 1.5m of overtake and so on. The thing is that if the ideal world existed, no riders would ever be killed! Exactly because there isn't such an ideal world with fairies and butterflies all over, cars usually will come from behind you with much higher speed than the speed limit while they may be under the influence, talking on the mobile, too old, too tired, too dark or simply with a fogged windshield, all these making them see you at the last moment. Single carriageway roads can usually squeeze bicycle and a car per direction at an emergency but not 2 bicycles and two cars. Whoever wants to take his chances just for leisure he is free to do so, but I would prefer to stay safe and delay as less as possible car traffic.

cyclisto wrote:

hawkinspeter wrote:

cyclisto wrote:

I disagree with riding abreast especially when we are speaking just for two cyclists. It is illegal in other countries, riding abreast is mostly about recreational cycling versus people wanting to go to their jobs and doing their errands and it is really really dangerous. I practically never go for recreational riding apart from touring when I will have costantly to remind my overenergetic buddy to keep single file.

I don't understand why you think it's so dangerous to ride two abreast. When overtaking, cars should be giving cyclists the same room as cars, so a car should be going into the other lane. Riding abreast simply forces the issue and prevents close passes as cars struggle to fit between another car and a single cyclist. Also, side-by-side cyclists are more visible and as a bonus, less time is taken for a car to overtake them.

Well this is a good thought but it has a fundemental flaw: that there is an ideal world where drivers will keep the 1.5m of overtake and so on. The thing is that if the ideal world existed, no riders would ever be killed! Exactly because there isn't such an ideal world with fairies and butterflies all over, cars usually will come from behind you with much higher speed than the speed limit while they may be under the influence, talking on the mobile, too old, too tired, too dark or simply with a fogged windshield, all these making them see you at the last moment. Single carriageway roads can usually squeeze bicycle and a car per direction at an emergency but not 2 bicycles and two cars. Whoever wants to take his chances just for leisure he is free to do so, but I would prefer to stay safe and delay as less as possible car traffic.

I still think that cycling side-by-side is safer in most situations for the reasons that I mentioned.

Are there any stats on road incidents comparing abreast and single file?

hawkinspeter wrote:

I still think that cycling side-by-side is safer in most situations for the reasons that I mentioned.

Are there any stats on road incidents comparing abreast and single file?

Why don't you go stand in the middle of the road and see how long it takes before someone hits you. We don't have stats on that either, but I'm sure it will be dangerous. (PS: don't do it!)