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

nbrus wrote:

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!)

That's a straw man argument as no-one is suggesting that standing in the middle of the road is safe (although the middle of the road is probably safer than standing in the middle of a lane). However, opinion is divided about riding two abreast, hence my asking for any evidence one way or another.

nbrus wrote:

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!)

Surely a competent driver would be prepared for both situations, no? Driving standards in this country are crap, I don't understand why you'd want to support this.

edit:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0ZgiVicpZGk

don simon wrote:

nbrus wrote:

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!)

Surely a competent driver would be prepared for both situations, no? Driving standards in this country are crap, I don't understand why you'd want to support this.

edit:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0ZgiVicpZGk

I'm not supporting bad driving ... I am being realistic ... no one likes being held up by someone having a chat cycling two-abreast ... if you want to chat, then pull over and chat. People don't like it when others are choosing to slow them down so they can chat ... its a screw you I don't give a fu*k attitude and than naturally will piss people off. I don't do it when I am out cycling with my buddy and the odd time that I briefly have I've been tooted at. I also find it dangerous as you can't even see what is coming up behind and even if you have a mirror you've got no where to go if looks like they haven't seen you.

nbrus wrote:

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!)

And yet the streets round here are full of cars parked so as to entirely block one lane. How come they aren't constantly being driven into?

FluffyKittenofTindalos wrote:

nbrus wrote:

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!)

And yet the streets round here are full of cars parked so as to entirely block one lane. How come they aren't constantly being driven into?

I find your posts amusing ... I'm still trying to understand them. You seem to really hate cars and will post on any thread to say so, even if its off topic. There are far too many cars cluttering up our roads and streets for sure.

nbrus wrote:

FluffyKittenofTindalos wrote:

nbrus wrote:

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!)

And yet the streets round here are full of cars parked so as to entirely block one lane. How come they aren't constantly being driven into?

I find your posts amusing ... I'm still trying to understand them. You seem to really hate cars and will post on any thread to say so, even if its off topic. There are far too many cars cluttering up our roads and streets for sure.

Thinking isn't your strong point, is it nbrus?

don simon wrote:

Thinking isn't your strong point, is it nbrus?

If you say so...

nbrus wrote:

don simon wrote:

Thinking isn't your strong point, is it nbrus?

If you say so...

I do and I can't be arsed picking holes in your stand in the road comments while you try to put down Fluffyk, but yes, you're pretty fucking thick. Don't woory though.

don simon wrote:

I do and I can't be arsed picking holes in your stand in the road comments while you try to put down Fluffyk, but yes, you're pretty fucking thick. Don't woory though.

I wasn't trying to put down FK if that's what you think ... though I guess it could look like that ... sorry FK that is not my intention. Just thought I'd clear that up. And DS, please feel free to pick holes in my stand in the road comments ... I might learn something.

FluffyKittenofTindalos wrote:

nbrus wrote:

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!)

And yet the streets round here are full of cars parked so as to entirely block one lane. How come they aren't constantly being driven into?

FK, I think I might have misunderstood your post the first time around as I assumed you were replying in relation to my response. Looking at this again I think you were actually comparing parked cars to two-abreast cycling which is what HP was making a statement on. If that's the case then I misunderstood your post as normally when someone responds it is related to the last comment. Sorry if I got this wrong (just me being thick I suppose).

The point I was making is that you don't need stats to tell you if something is dangerous.

As regards parked cars, people expect to see cars parked at the side of a road (in town), so they aren't surprised when it happens and so are unlikely to collide with them. It's a lot less common to see two-abreast cyclists on a road and this can take drivers by surprise if they aren't paying attention. It's also not unkown for cars to drive into the back of slow moving (or stationary in middle of lane) vehicles such as tractors because they weren't paying attention for a moment.

nbrus wrote:

The point I was making is that you don't need stats to tell you if something is dangerous.

Stats, actual information, objectivity: that's exactly what this topic needs, as opposed to bias and supposition.

davel wrote:

nbrus wrote:

The point I was making is that you don't need stats to tell you if something is dangerous.

Stats, actual information, objectivity: that's exactly what this topic needs, as opposed to bias and supposition.

This is a cycling forum ... its going to be biased.

nbrus wrote:

 

As regards parked cars, people expect to see cars parked at the side of a road (in town), so they aren't surprised when it happens and so are unlikely to collide with them. It's a lot less common to see two-abreast cyclists on a road and this can take drivers by surprise if they aren't paying attention.

So why hasn't parked cars come out on top of a list questioning what frustrates drivers?

Also, it's good this, it's written in your words and everything:

 "It's a lot less common to see two-abreast cyclists"

So what's the problem?

"this can take drivers by surprise if they aren't paying attention"

Ahhh I see, the problem yet again is drivers in control of a killing machine not paying attention.

Thanks for clearing everything up!

alansmurphy wrote:

nbrus wrote:

 

As regards parked cars, people expect to see cars parked at the side of a road (in town), so they aren't surprised when it happens and so are unlikely to collide with them. It's a lot less common to see two-abreast cyclists on a road and this can take drivers by surprise if they aren't paying attention.

 

So why hasn't parked cars come out on top of a list questioning what frustrates drivers?

 

Also, it's good this, it's written in your words and everything:

 

 "It's a lot less common to see two-abreast cyclists"

 

So what's the problem?

 

"this can take drivers by surprise if they aren't paying attention"

 

Ahhh I see, the problem yet again is drivers in control of a killing machine not paying attention.

 

Thanks for clearing everything up!

Parked cars do frustrate other drivers ... it narrows the road and often makes it impossible for two lanes of traffic to flow. It also makes it more difficult to find a parking space. Its especially annoying when someone else parks outside your front door preventing you from parking there and using your street as a parking lot while they go off to work.

The thing is ... cars need to be parked somewhere. It is more annoying when two cars are stopped side-by-side holding up traffic while the drivers stop to chat.

nbrus wrote:

The thing is ... cars need to be parked somewhere.

And why is that my problem, when cycling or on the bus? It's your car, you chose to use it for this journey where to park it is your problem, it doesn't give you the right to obstruct a throughfare.

Besides, drivers do tend to alternate between complaining about slow traffic flow (very often due to so much of the road taken up by parked cars) and complaining about having nowhere to park. And complaints about parked cars just get displaced onto cyclists - who are only in the way because the space they could have been using has instead been taken by parked cars - or just general gripes about 'insufficient roadspace'.

For the most part, drivers just don't see parked cars, they will rail at the cyclist in front of them while not noticing half the road is being used as storage space.

nbrus wrote:

alansmurphy wrote:

nbrus wrote:

 

As regards parked cars, people expect to see cars parked at the side of a road (in town), so they aren't surprised when it happens and so are unlikely to collide with them. It's a lot less common to see two-abreast cyclists on a road and this can take drivers by surprise if they aren't paying attention.

 

So why hasn't parked cars come out on top of a list questioning what frustrates drivers?

 

Also, it's good this, it's written in your words and everything:

 

 "It's a lot less common to see two-abreast cyclists"

 

So what's the problem?

 

"this can take drivers by surprise if they aren't paying attention"

 

Ahhh I see, the problem yet again is drivers in control of a killing machine not paying attention.

 

Thanks for clearing everything up!

Parked cars do frustrate other drivers ... it narrows the road and often makes it impossible for two lanes of traffic to flow. It also makes it more difficult to find a parking space. Its especially annoying when someone else parks outside your front door preventing you from parking there and using your street as a parking lot while they go off to work.

The thing is ... cars need to be parked somewhere. It is more annoying when two cars are stopped side-by-side holding up traffic while the drivers stop to chat.

You continue to fuel your own idiotic view being an apologist for cars.

You don't like cyclists riding 2 abreast though you suggest its rare, you're angry that these people chat.

You don't mind parked cars that by definition move slower than the 2 abreast cyclists as "cars need to be parked somewhere".

However, you don't like it when you can't find a space or someone parks too close to your little piece of land.

You're prat of the problem!

You ignore the fact that the dependency on the car/lorry has created 99% of the problems on the road and simply look for ways that cyclists can make it easier fore them to speed past drinking lattes and updating twitter.

alansmurphy wrote:

nbrus wrote:

alansmurphy wrote:

nbrus wrote:

 

As regards parked cars, people expect to see cars parked at the side of a road (in town), so they aren't surprised when it happens and so are unlikely to collide with them. It's a lot less common to see two-abreast cyclists on a road and this can take drivers by surprise if they aren't paying attention.

 

So why hasn't parked cars come out on top of a list questioning what frustrates drivers?

 

Also, it's good this, it's written in your words and everything:

 

 "It's a lot less common to see two-abreast cyclists"

 

So what's the problem?

 

"this can take drivers by surprise if they aren't paying attention"

 

Ahhh I see, the problem yet again is drivers in control of a killing machine not paying attention.

 

Thanks for clearing everything up!

Parked cars do frustrate other drivers ... it narrows the road and often makes it impossible for two lanes of traffic to flow. It also makes it more difficult to find a parking space. Its especially annoying when someone else parks outside your front door preventing you from parking there and using your street as a parking lot while they go off to work.

The thing is ... cars need to be parked somewhere. It is more annoying when two cars are stopped side-by-side holding up traffic while the drivers stop to chat.

 

You continue to fuel your own idiotic view being an apologist for cars.

 

You don't like cyclists riding 2 abreast though you suggest its rare, you're angry that these people chat.

 

You don't mind parked cars that by definition move slower than the 2 abreast cyclists as "cars need to be parked somewhere".

 

However, you don't like it when you can't find a space or someone parks too close to your little piece of land.

 

You're prat of the problem!

 

You ignore the fact that the dependency on the car/lorry has created 99% of the problems on the road and simply look for ways that cyclists can make it easier fore them to speed past drinking lattes and updating twitter.

 

 

That bit is staying in, for the record.

don simon wrote:

alansmurphy wrote:

nbrus wrote:

alansmurphy wrote:

nbrus wrote:

 

As regards parked cars, people expect to see cars parked at the side of a road (in town), so they aren't surprised when it happens and so are unlikely to collide with them. It's a lot less common to see two-abreast cyclists on a road and this can take drivers by surprise if they aren't paying attention.

 

So why hasn't parked cars come out on top of a list questioning what frustrates drivers?

 

Also, it's good this, it's written in your words and everything:

 

 "It's a lot less common to see two-abreast cyclists"

 

So what's the problem?

 

"this can take drivers by surprise if they aren't paying attention"

 

Ahhh I see, the problem yet again is drivers in control of a killing machine not paying attention.

 

Thanks for clearing everything up!

Parked cars do frustrate other drivers ... it narrows the road and often makes it impossible for two lanes of traffic to flow. It also makes it more difficult to find a parking space. Its especially annoying when someone else parks outside your front door preventing you from parking there and using your street as a parking lot while they go off to work.

The thing is ... cars need to be parked somewhere. It is more annoying when two cars are stopped side-by-side holding up traffic while the drivers stop to chat.

 

You continue to fuel your own idiotic view being an apologist for cars.

 

You don't like cyclists riding 2 abreast though you suggest its rare, you're angry that these people chat.

 

You don't mind parked cars that by definition move slower than the 2 abreast cyclists as "cars need to be parked somewhere".

 

However, you don't like it when you can't find a space or someone parks too close to your little piece of land.

 

You're part of the problem!

 

You ignore the fact that the dependency on the car/lorry has created 99% of the problems on the road and simply look for ways that cyclists can make it easier fore them to speed past drinking lattes and updating twitter.

 

 

That bit is staying in, for the record.

No it isn't. 

alansmurphy wrote:

nbrus wrote:

alansmurphy wrote:

nbrus wrote:

 

As regards parked cars, people expect to see cars parked at the side of a road (in town), so they aren't surprised when it happens and so are unlikely to collide with them. It's a lot less common to see two-abreast cyclists on a road and this can take drivers by surprise if they aren't paying attention.

 

So why hasn't parked cars come out on top of a list questioning what frustrates drivers?

 

Also, it's good this, it's written in your words and everything:

 

 "It's a lot less common to see two-abreast cyclists"

 

So what's the problem?

 

"this can take drivers by surprise if they aren't paying attention"

 

Ahhh I see, the problem yet again is drivers in control of a killing machine not paying attention.

 

Thanks for clearing everything up!

Parked cars do frustrate other drivers ... it narrows the road and often makes it impossible for two lanes of traffic to flow. It also makes it more difficult to find a parking space. Its especially annoying when someone else parks outside your front door preventing you from parking there and using your street as a parking lot while they go off to work.

The thing is ... cars need to be parked somewhere. It is more annoying when two cars are stopped side-by-side holding up traffic while the drivers stop to chat.

 

You continue to fuel your own idiotic view being an apologist for cars.

 

You don't like cyclists riding 2 abreast though you suggest its rare, you're angry that these people chat.

 

You don't mind parked cars that by definition move slower than the 2 abreast cyclists as "cars need to be parked somewhere".

 

However, you don't like it when you can't find a space or someone parks too close to your little piece of land.

 

You're part of the problem!

 

You ignore the fact that the dependency on the car/lorry has created 99% of the problems on the road and simply look for ways that cyclists can make it easier fore them to speed past drinking lattes and updating twitter.

I like your idea of utopia where almost everyone gets around by bicycle. I don't however think it is practical. The reason you own a bicycle is because it was delivered to you, or your local bike shop, by someone driving a lorry. Motor vehicles are essential to modern society. Getting people to use both cars and bicycles is a more realistic prospect. Not everyone can cycle (e.g. the elderly or infirm) and it isn't an efficient way to cover larger distances, especially when carrying a load. Maybe car shares will become popular when self-driving vehicles are commonplace and reduce the number of vehicles cluttering up our streets. Utopia awaits.

nbrus wrote:

alansmurphy wrote:

nbrus wrote:

 

As regards parked cars, people expect to see cars parked at the side of a road (in town), so they aren't surprised when it happens and so are unlikely to collide with them. It's a lot less common to see two-abreast cyclists on a road and this can take drivers by surprise if they aren't paying attention.

 

So why hasn't parked cars come out on top of a list questioning what frustrates drivers?

 

Also, it's good this, it's written in your words and everything:

 

 "It's a lot less common to see two-abreast cyclists"

 

So what's the problem?

 

"this can take drivers by surprise if they aren't paying attention"

 

Ahhh I see, the problem yet again is drivers in control of a killing machine not paying attention.

 

Thanks for clearing everything up!

Parked cars do frustrate other drivers ... it narrows the road and often makes it impossible for two lanes of traffic to flow. It also makes it more difficult to find a parking space. Its especially annoying when someone else parks outside your front door preventing you from parking there and using your street as a parking lot while they go off to work.

The thing is ... cars need to be parked somewhere. It is more annoying when two cars are stopped side-by-side holding up traffic while the drivers stop to chat.

All the statements about the effects of parked cars are true and they probably result on more time lost on journeys than cyclists, but the do not frustrate drivers because like you they (we?) consider that the public highway is available space for storing cars. Regardless that it slowd traffic flow, reduces disability increasing risk and may even obstruct the passage of emergency vehicles.

This is among a long list of causes of delay which is acceptable, it's only when it is cyclist that the delay becomes intolerable and leads to aggressive response.

And then because "cars must be parked somewhere" they move onto parking on the pavement.

When we bought our house we specifically looked for a place with a drive big enough for two cars, because we had two cars. We didn't rely on being able to appropriate the highway for this purpose. What else am I allowed to store there? Can I get a bike locker and leave it in the space outside my house so I don't need to bring the bike inside?

wycombewheeler wrote:

All the statements about the effects of parked cars are true and they probably result on more time lost on journeys than cyclists, but the do not frustrate drivers because like you they (we?) consider that the public highway is available space for storing cars. Regardless that it slowd traffic flow, reduces disability increasing risk and may even obstruct the passage of emergency vehicles. This is among a long list of causes of delay which is acceptable, it's only when it is cyclist that the delay becomes intolerable and leads to aggressive response. And then because "cars must be parked somewhere" they move onto parking on the pavement. When we bought our house we specifically looked for a place with a drive big enough for two cars, because we had two cars. We didn't rely on being able to appropriate the highway for this purpose. What else am I allowed to store there? Can I get a bike locker and leave it in the space outside my house so I don't need to bring the bike inside?

I'm interested in the outcome of driverless cars in relation to parking. On the one hand, driverless cars can be parked in out of town areas and be summoned when required, but alternatively, they could be left driving around if you're just popping out briefly. Either way, they could lead to a massive increase in traffic unless people plump for a shared usage model (I personally think that's what will end up happening).

nbrus wrote:

Parked cars ... makes it more difficult to find a parking space.

Now I'm torn...

Hark to his cold inexorable logic 

...or...

The tragedy of the commons...

You choose. I'll get my coat.

cyclisto wrote:

I will have costantly to remind my overenergetic buddy to keep single file.

What a barrel of laughs you are.

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.

Cyclisto, which countries do you know where cycling two abreast is illegal?

janusz0 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.

Cyclisto, which countries do you know where cycling two abreast is illegal?

Regarding big countries, it is forbidden in China and Japan and I have found similar on smaller eastern Europe countries. I am 100% sure though that such laws will be in other countries too, it is just that the language barrier prohibits from searching such a minor importance law.

But to be ownest, practically it doesn't apply to UK on most occasions:

"never ride more than two abreast, and ride in single file on narrow or busy roads and when riding round bends"

http://www.highwaycode.info/rule/66

I am not sticking on the law though when on bicycle or foot. Commuting by walking and cycling makes cities much better and therefore it is a top priority that these two groups will have nothing but the best legal protection in order to ensure that people are attracted to lock their cars at their garages. When there are laws that make me feel unsafe or inefficient on bike I will simply bend them.

cyclisto wrote:

janusz0 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.

Cyclisto, which countries do you know where cycling two abreast is illegal?

 

Regarding big countries, it is forbidden in China and Japan and I have found similar on smaller eastern Europe countries. I am 100% sure though that such laws will be in other countries too, it is just that the language barrier prohibits from searching such a minor importance law.

But to be ownest, practically it doesn't apply to UK on most occasions:

"never ride more than two abreast, and ride in single file on narrow or busy roads and when riding round bends"

http://www.highwaycode.info/rule/66

 

I am not sticking on the law though when on bicycle or foot. Commuting by walking and cycling makes cities much better and therefore it is a top priority that these two groups will have nothing but the best legal protection in order to ensure that people are attracted to lock their cars at their garages. When there are laws that make me feel unsafe or inefficient on bike I will simply bend them.

As car aspoligists are fond of reminding us, the HC is only binding if it says "must". This bit if the HC is plainly pretty fatuous and car biased, since those are exactly the situations when I do not want someone to overtake me unless it's clearly safe to be in the other lane.