“I will always ride two abreast”: Pro cyclist stopped and fined by Italian police for cycling two abreast, as he says “I’d rather pay the fine than risk ending up under another car”

Mr Blackbird wrote:

Most of the group rides I go on involve riding 2 abreast, as it is a social as well as a training activity. However, when traffic comes behind us, we go into single file to allow it to pass, then regroup into 2 abreast. It seems the most sensible way of co-operating with other road users.

Obviously, it depends on the specifics of the road, but in general it should be easier for a driver to overtake cyclists that are 2 abreast as the distance is shorter. I would guess that you go into single file to allow drivers to overtake without having to fully take the other lane, but it's debatable as to whether that's encouraging poor overtakes.

Absolutely. I find most drivers are reasonable. But there seems to be less patience on Friday afternoons / eves and at school drop off / collection times.

Mr Blackbird wrote:

Absolutely. I find most drivers are reasonable. But there seems to be less patience on Friday afternoons / eves and at school drop off / collection times.

The very worst drivers seem to congregate outside of schools and take-aways

Beautifully and succinctly explained. However, it's an uphill battle when people such as Lisa, the Surrey Police & Crime Commissioner, no less, espouse the following views:

Quote:

Lisa: David is half Dutch, and he talked about how terrible our cycling infrastructure is. I know it’s not great but it would never be a political priority for me to give cyclists better infrastructure, particularly when they don’t contribute in vehicle taxes.

David: Road tax for bicycles is unworkable. Bikes do use roads, but so do pedestrians, and dogs. I recently got a hybrid car and the tax is very low. By that logic, if you’re reducing what’s paid for polluting vehicles to pretty negligible amounts for hybrids and electric cars, what would you charge for a bike? How would you enforce it?

Lisa: I’m not anti cyclist. I’m anti the full-Sky-replica-kit Sunday cyclists who ignore red lights and drive three or four abreast in front of me.

https://www.theguardian.com/lifeandstyle/2024/dec/06/dining-across-the-d...

Martin_ wrote:

This is exactly where the UCI should focus its efforts

Except that the UCI is a sports governing body, and has nothing to do with transit or recreational cycling. That would be like the FIA trying to regulate what car drivers do on the road.

No, I disagree. From my experience here in the Czech Republic, the ČSC (our local cycling federation) represents all cyclists—or at least it should. It’s not just about racing. Similarly, the FIA claims to care about general mobility in addition to motor sport.

So, who else should be the government’s partner in discussions about these issues?

What FIA says about itself: The FIA is the governing body of motor sport and promotes safe, sustainable, and accessible mobility for all road users worldwide.

Sporting ideas may be orthogonal to or even conflict with "general transport use".  At the most basic there are different "use cases".  Sporting organisations might be keen for sponsorship - from fuel and car companies!  They might be principally concerned about bigger groups cycling (occasionally), longer rides, and be more concerned about speed.

In the UK you'll hear some more sport-focussed cyclists rejecting the notion of cycle infra - they're happy enough riding with traffic.  Most people in the UK don't ride at all - at least in part due to not wanting to ride with motor traffic!

While there can be considerable overlap that isn't a given.  (Although sub-groups affiliated with the main bodies may also have wider concerns).

Just look at how different the bikes are (sport, transport - and that's not counting all the "cycles" you can see here)!

In the UK while British Cycling does do some general cycling stuff, Cycling UK is more focussed on the "everyone cycling".  (And in fact even they started from a cycle-touring club, so are at least as much focussed on "recreation" as "transport". ).  Sustrans?  Hmm... mixed opinions there, but I think it can be said they're now at least as focussed on walking as cycling?

Sort of similarly NL has the Royal Dutch Cycling Union (sport / racing) and the Fietsersbond (transport / general cycling - who started as a campaign group for cyclists' safety) etc.

I can definitely see radar when I'm on the roads.

The required colour of clothing varies according to the background and lighting.

If 2 cyclists ride side by side dressed up as you require how is that more dangerous than one cyclist ?

What percentage of overtakes are close passes in your experience, and how many of those are because the driver hasn't seen you? For me the second number is 0%. All the lights and radars in the world won't help, you'll still get close passed.

And I'm not holding my breath for the FIA to fight my corner (or the UCI).

FIA represents disabled road users - the Federation is the governing body for world motor sport and the federation of the world’s leading Mobility Organisations.

I was close passed this morning (camera glitch meant no footage).

I had a 300 lumens rear light and a radar light but the speeding driver did not care or see.

The radar definitely helps. Since I started using it, the percentage of close passes has decreased, and the effect was immediate.

And I'm not saying that the UCI does this, but my question is: who else should do it, as I believe it should be done? Who should work to unify the rules across Europe and support cyclists in general?

I don't know what the FIA does, but I do know that the UCI does nothing in this regard.

Martin_ wrote:

The radar definitely helps. Since I started using it, the percentage of close passes has decreased, and the effect was immediate.

Amazing! I didn't realize that they put out enough energy to deflect a two ton car! It must take a while to recharge the battery though if the radar is that powerfull!

Martin_ wrote:

And I'm not saying that the UCI does this, but my question is: who else should do it, as I believe it should be done? Who should work to unify the rules across Europe and support cyclists in general?

Supporting cyclists - there are plenty of membership/charitable organisations. CoaB has flagged up a few above, and there are others, such as touring/randonneur/audax clubs, local clubs, bike lobby groups, and so on, which are there to serve the needs of their users; and then there are governmental and psuedo-governmental organisations (such as British Cycling) where governments want to encourage cycling as a policy measure.

Unifying the rules - well, first of all we have to determine whether that's a sensible measure (which I'm afraid takes more than you simply asserting it to be so). There are good arguments in the other direction - that what are sensible rules and norms in one context are absolutely not in another. You mentioned, for example, whether cyclists are required to use cycle facilities. That might make sense where those facilities form a high-quality (or even adequate) network, but not so much somewhere where they're a minimal gesture at getting the cyclists out of the way of motor traffic and then abandoning them.

Aside from confirmation bias, radar alters how you ride, so if there was a reduction, the reason(s) may not be as you would wish them to be.

I can hear the car approaching, then I get close passed. How will seeing it on a radar help me? I can see radar being helpful if you're unable to turn your head or you can't hear approaching cars.

Slightly different to that which was claimed.

Radar means you can (depending on model), tell how far away they are and what speed. Then you can see if they are slowing. This then gives you options around taking primary, making a J curve ( in an attempt to get their attention), diving for the kerb or bunny hopping on to it ( in the worst case). It doesn't do away with a small mirror, because even if they are slowing, it doesn't mean they are on the right track - away from you.

It just gives you a few extra seconds to control things or abandon !

I think the original claim was relating to the garmin which changes light pattern with an approaching motorist. Or you could just have 2 or 3 cheap lights all with different patterns.

Martin_ wrote:

I also believe that riding two abreast is more dangerous.

Why?

If it's a group ride with 10 people, then riding two abreast is absolutely fine. But when it's just two of us, the only thing that happens is that it increases the aggression of drivers waiting behind, and raises the risk of close passes and other issues. Drivers feel like you're doing something illegal, and they often try to "teach you a lesson." This is my experience from here.

I always keep in mind that cyclists are weak compared to cars. It's not about riding in the gutter, but not actively looking for fights or showing off how strong I feel on the bike.

Unfortunately I find that a) I have little control over what is going to trigger some driver b) there is little way of telling beforehand and c) I've definitely had a few (luckily one or two I can remember) plain "there's a cyclist, let's get them" events.

So I appreciate "stack the odds in your favour" and am certainly not "actively looking for fights" - which BTW seems an odd way to describe a perfectly normal, legal behaviour which is in fact kinda recommended for safety purposes (rule 66) in the rules...  At some point though you have to accept that trying not to "annoy" unpredictable potential aggressors won't keep you safe and also has an emotional / mental cost to yourself.

I'd say it's somewhere between "don't stare at people" and wearing a (un)lucky rabbit's foot.

To be clear then, a group of 10 won't trigger a driver but 2 will.

And you've never been taught a lesson simply for being on the road ?

cyclisto wrote:

You will definitely not change my mind, I just home to help somebody else see the reality.

Coming to the table completely unwilling to be persuaded by anybody else's argument is not a great approach if you hope to persuade them of yours. It doesn't really leave any space for a meaningful discussion.

cyclisto wrote:

As a rider, driver and car passenger, riding abreast, especially when with just 2 riders seems one of the most dangerous things ever, especially at a country not very used to cyclists on the road.

This guys claims just 2 riding abreast will increase visibility. I strongly disagree

If you can't see two riders side by side easier than two riders in single file then you should give up your driving licence and stick to being a passenger or riding your bike.

Your argument seems to be 'ride in the gutter so that drivers who don't see you might miss you through sheer luck'.

That's not an accurate diagnosis of the problem, and therefore not a good solution.

Laz wrote:

I am quite surprised. I recall reading (indeed ages ago....emphsis on the ages) drivers in Italy were respectful of cyclists on the road. 

In my limited experience, drivers in Italy are indeed respectful of cyclists when they see them, but there is also quite a macho culture amongst male drivers that leads them to take significant chances on the road. I'd say (again this is from limited experience I admit) that you are less likely in Italy than in the UK to have trouble with drivers being deliberately aggressive when you're on a bike, but on the flipside you are somewhat more likely to have to face drivers behaving in a frightening manner because they are going at it as if they are in the Monte Carlo rally. Also the driving culture in big cities is notably aggressive, again there doesn't seem to be as much aggression directed at cyclists as there is in the UK but the general every man for himself, use your horn constantly and steal every extra inch of space you can get culture from drivers can be both bewildering and scary at times.