UKC

Serious question - not a troll...

Here in Norfolk as elsewhere groups of cyclists are becoming a more common sight. I caught up with a group of 16 or so the other day riding as one complete group two to three abreast so that the group were about the size of an articulated lorry. Twisty road with short straights so not really safe to overtake and I was content to travel a couple of miles behind them at 20 mph or so as I was turning off anyway.

I'm assuming there will be people reading this biking forum who ride in groups and on much busier roads than the one I was on and I was wondering how you co-exist with traffic. Do you generally try and keep off main roads and does the group have a plan in how it reacts when there is a build up of traffic behind it ?

For instance if a group split into two with a decent gap between both parts then it's presumably easier for cars to overtake one half at a time rather than one big group or do you find it makes no difference to how motorists behave to you ?

I remember being in Majorca a couple of years ago and encountering absolutely massive groups of bikes at times on the way to the crags and realising you can't do anything other than go with the flow..

In reply to Dave Reeve: I find the best way to over take any group of cyclists is to skilfully drive up to them as close as you can and honk you horn , this gives them the warning they need to get out of your way, if you clip one or two , it's a bonus, you should be going so fast they can't get your number, so speed is the key and a gentle sound of your horn does the trick.

In reply to Dave Reeve:

It's tricky and something people will have to get used to as cycling becomes more and more popular. What you did was great - patience is the key. Impatient drivers are deadly.

However they shouldn't ever be three abreast, i'm constantly shouting at riders in our groups to get 2 abreast and tighten up a bit.

It's good if a group of cyclists have a leader who can shout instructions and can read the road. What you have to remember, especially on some uk roads like in The Dales and the SW, it's often harder to pass a single line of say 16 bikes than it is to pass a double line of 8 bikes so don't go mad if a group don't go single file when you think they should - more often than not the cyclists can read the road in front better than the car sat 50m behind.

On my club rides if theres 20/30 riders we'll usually be in two groups a couple of hundred metres apart.

Anyhow - I wish more motorists had your attitude and patience. Thanks.

E

In reply to Dave Reeve: as a motorist , when anyone faster approaches me from behind and needs to overtake, I indicate over to the left, I drive closer to the left, I slow down to give them more time to complete the manoeuvre.

It is just good manners.

In reply to Dave Reeve:

Dunno about the width or state of roads in Norfolk but around here a group of sixteen is a bit big for the roads unless it's at a quiet time of day/week - the A group on our Weds evening ride for instance gets up to around 20 but we'll only meet a dozen cars or so in 90 minutes of riding. I think that 12 or so is about the maximum sensible size around here, certainly at weekends.

Cycling on main roads isn't that pleasant in general so we tend to avoid them unless necessary - too much speed differential between cars and bikes.

Splitting in to two groups can have good points and bad ones: fine for a single car but sometimes you get a second car trying to force their way in to the gap so you don't get the increase in safety for all road users.

The "motorist's view" that a group should move to single line can make overtaking harder: allow 2.5 metres for length of bike with a wheel's diameter between bikes and you can soon have a line of cyclists as long as two articulated lorries. Some motorists appear incapable of safely overtaking a single cyclist or heaven forbid a car.

There's a responsibility on the cyclists as well of course not to hold traffic up for too long and waving traffic through when they can see it's safe for overtaking while technically non-official and motorists do not have to accept the request (possibly they shouldn't) is reasonably common.

It seems that this year has seen an improvement in driver behaviour towards cyclists compared with last year. There's still the occasional impatient pillock but in general everyone seems to get along. Of course this harmony doesn't make good headlines or for internet discussions!

ALC

In reply to Jim C:

I'll do that on my bike, but I'll only do it when I can find somewhere safe to pull in, and I'm a lone cyclist. I don't imagine it would be easy or safe for a group to do that.

Getting slowed up behind slower moving vehicles (horses, tractors, cyclists) just seems like one of the risks of country roads.

In reply to a lakeland climber:


You're not really supposed to wave people through, a bit like the way you're supposed supposed to flash your headlights so indicate you're giving way. I frequently do wave people through if I have a better view than them- if nothing else it lets drivers know that I'm aware of them and I'm not trying to hold them up.

In reply to Dave Reeve:

Our club, local to Box Hill, so cycling on roads awash with cars and cyclists, doesn't go out in groups larger than 12. We try and keep the group tight, usually two abreast, but 8 will often go line astern. What we find is that if there is a small gap in the group then one car will overtake and squeeze into it, another car will blindly follow, have nowhere to go and then squeeze the second group. Not pleasant.

Bide your time as you seem to do. You've got loads of horses under your right foot and will soon catch up any time that you lost, and remember that the reason that you can't overtake cyclists is because the cars coming the other way. If there weren't any cars, overtaking would be easy!

In reply to Trevers:

I know - I'm not sure of the legality of it. It gets done a lot by many road users but if there was an accident as a result of it I don't know where responsibility would lie. Like you say, it's an indication that: a) the road ahead is clear, b) the rider(s) consider it safe for overtaking.

Is waving someone on any different to a driver indicating left for the same reason? It's a grey area - common usage but little or no basis in law.

ALC

In reply to a lakeland climber:
- common usage but little or no basis in law.


It can be helpful but what I think cyclists (or drivers) shouldn't do is wave more insistently if someone doesn't overtake as sometimes happens

In reply to Dave Reeve:

I've found that when a long queue builds up behind a slow moving vehicle like a tractor and trailer, the driver makes an effort to pull into laybys, field gates etc from time to time, to allow the queue to disperse. This is considerate and good manners. Why don't cyclists/ cycle groups do the same? It does happen but it's rare, and more likely in the case of a single cyclist than for a group.

In reply to MG:

I think that's just frustration

What's annoying as a cyclist is that you wave someone on as you can see the road ahead is clear but they wait ..... and wait .... and wait, then begin to overtake when the road narrows, on a bend, more traffic coming the other way. If you think about it logically then a cyclist isn't going to suggest to a driver that they pass them in a situation that's going to put themselves at risk.

To Trangia: I agree, they should, but it's not always possible as you do need, or rather prefer, a tarmac area to pull in to and if you are on an uphill stretch of road then momentum is quite important to a cyclist as you don't have X horse power under the bonnet to get going again.

ALC

In reply to a lakeland climber:
it logically then a cyclist isn't going to suggest to a driver that they pass them in a situation that's going to put themselves at risk.


No, but it remains the driver's responsibility to pass safely. I am certainly relucant to overtake unless I can clearly see it's safe, despite someone else telling me it is.

In reply to Trangia:

You've clearly not driven much round here (Dales) - if I've ever seen it happen I can't remember, and I've followed tractors, caravans, hay wagons and diggers for miles along main roads.

Agree with ALC's point - we do pull in if it's possible to do so, but more often than not we're on roads we know and there's a place to overtake not far ahead. I think Enty's point that patience is the key - if you actually analyse how much time you wait for it's generally a matter of under a minute. The nearest misses our club seem to have is when we're trying to be uber considerate and lining out on 2 lane roads, when a driver tries to overtake the line but bottles it half way along and pulls in, or a second car follows the first etc.

It's actually not that difficult to find a widening and just slow down a bit so the car can get past - but the point about momentum is well made - if I'm blowing out of my arse trying to get up a hill I'm unlikely to unclip, stop and then try to get going again!

In reply to Trangia:


Because they dont want their Strava section time screwed?

In reply to a lakeland climber:

Remember as a cyclist you're higher up than most car drivers. The car driver might genuinely not be able to see sufficiently to pass safely.

Neil

In reply to MG:

Though equally cycling in a large group is best avoided, as it unnecessarily makes the overtake harder, so could be argued to be causing an unnecessary obstruction on a busy road or one with limited overtaking opportunities. An articulated lorry can't help being large, a group of cyclists can split up.

Neil

In reply to MG:

I understand that point of view but drivers can't then say that the cyclist was holding them up or being obstructive. Even if you don't pass as soon as the cyclist indicates you should at least be in a position to do so (correct gear etc) when you can see rather than wait and wait and wait.

To be fair it's not every driver that's like that, most nip past when you've waved them on and wave thanks.

We shouldn't let the bad mannered or inconsiderate exceptions rule the discussion.

ALC

In reply to andy:

ha ha !! Same here.
Why don't caravaners and campervans have some sort of code of conduct? I've seen the odd campervan go all the way around a roundabout to let the line of cars through - great idea!

E

In reply to Trevers:

Slow moving vehicles are one of the things we all have to put up with. However, I don't expect tractors to travel in groups and I don't believe cyclists should do it either. Consideration cuts both ways!

In reply to a lakeland climber:

It isn't bad manners to disregard a wave on. It's bad manners to insist someone takes one when the Highway Code instructs you to neither give nor take such a signal, as the responsibility for checking an overtake is safe is with the overtaker.

If *I* cannot see it is safe, I will not overtake.

Neil

In reply to Neil Williams:

Slightly different scenario:

car broken down at side of road but still obstructing highway and in an awkward position, lets say on the crown of a hill. The driver is by the side of the vehicle waving vehicles through or indicating to slow down/stop. Do you ignore him?

I've been out cycling on my own, so discussions about groups don't apply, and still some drivers can't get overtaking a cyclist right. An example from a couple of weeks ago: I'm riding up a single track road with passing places, the gradient's about 10-12%, there is no chance to pull off the road anywhere else as it is bounded by walls and hedges. The road at this point is straight for 300yds with visibility for that length. A car is behind me and I'm approaching one of the passing places, I can only have been doing about 6mph if that, so I wave the car on and pull in to the side. No movement. I need to keep going so at the next passing place about 50yds further on do the same - still no movement. Eventually the car passes me on a blind bend which puts everyone at risk.

ALC

In reply to Neil Williams:

Agreed but if you don't consider it safe to overtake then it's likely not to be safe for the cyclists to pull in to the side of the road so you should accept that you are going to be held up for a few seconds.

ALC

In reply to Dave Reeve:

I've been out a couple of times recently with a local club, thinking about joining but have dropped the idea because their group rides are a shambles; badly planned and led and their road manners are atrocious to the point where I'm embarrassed to be seen with them.

In the Ribble Valley and Bowland area I sense that we are heading for a conflict with local drivers as the numbers of cyclists increase. The roads are narrow and twisty and overtaking opportunities very few and as a driver I sympathise when drivers get frustrated, especially those who are working like the milk tanker, although they usually turn off the road fairly frequently.

Big groups ought to split into groups of no more than 12 and ought to have a procedure to allow following vehicles to pass. It's all down to good leadership and club discipline.

In reply to Dave Reeve: I think there is a major problem with how drivers behave around cyclists and how some cyclists behave on the road. Some drivers are impatient and can't wait to overtake cyclists, even when it's completely dangerous to do so, don't give enough room and often seen being generally agressive towards cyclists.
Then there's the bad cyclists who think they have a god-given right to use the road, no matter where it is and will position themselves in such a way that it inconveniences most other road users just because they can. They'll even carry on past a nice passing point if they think they can get the KOM on Strava (I'm not blaming stava for their indiscretions). Thankfully these are few in number. Most cyclists I've come across were patient and considerate and seldom put themselves at risk - it's just the minority that let's the crowd down. same goes for drivers.

I fail to understand the necessity to be so impatient among drivers. I actually get scared when there's a car wanting to overtake me on a road with a solid white line and I'm in a car, god knows what it must be like for cyclists with lycra to protect them!

In reply to a lakeland climber:

Correct. I might have misinterpreted your post, but I got the feeling that you were objecting to the car remaining behind you. I can see that might feel threatening, but provided a safe speed and distance is maintained it shouldn't be an issue.

Neil

In reply to Rigid Raider:

Agree, see my post earlier about having groups up to 12 in size. It's not actually that nice riding in a very big group anyway and requires a lot more concentration than most people realise.

There's a range of ability in most cycling clubs just as in most things.

ALC

In reply to Rigid Raider:


Best not go out with the Leeds Chaingang then...

In reply to a lakeland climber:

Is it really necessary to travel in groups of 12?

In reply to a lakeland climber: Even on a Wednesday, apart from chainganging down Grassington Rd, I can't think where we ever ride in a group of more than half a dozen, can you? It's so undulating round here the group's usually split up one way or another.

I do wonder sometimes whether some drivers might get more pissed off with the fact they pass one group of three or four, then 200 yards later come across another couple, then another etc etc. Maybe pass a law than limits the concentration of bikes to "no more than two per mile"?

And down Grassington Road it's two lanes all the way and good visibility - we'll be in two lines, taking up about half a lane, maybe 30-40m long and moving at about 25mph - I'd be amazed if we held anyone up for more than 5-10 seconds.

In reply to timjones:

Yes. Next question.

In reply to timjones:

OK then, what group size limit would you like to *impose* ?

Ten, eight, two, one, none?

ALC

In reply to andy:

Why?

Do you suffer from separation anxiety if you're not in a pack

In reply to a lakeland climber:

It's about consideration for others. It shouldn't be necessary to impose limits. Why do you all need to travel the same route at the same time?

In reply to timjones: Tell you what - you get yourself a bicycle and ride 40 miles into a headwind on your own. Then come back and tell us why you think it might be helpful to ride with a group.

In reply to andy:

If you don't like it don't do it, if 12 wimps all want to make the same journey they can always share a minibus

In reply to andy:

More enjoyable, yes. But roads are for transport primarily, not pure enjoyment, and all users need to consider avoiding unnecessary obstructions to other users, whatever their vehicle.

Neil

In reply to Enty:


Only 3? TBH, I'm pretty tolerant of cyclists on narrow country roads (given it sometimes me), but I was losing my patience last autumn when we seemed to have 3 or 4 sportive events down the valley in quick succession. The most bemusing were those who insisted on riding towards me 3 or 4 abreast, apparently assuming I could somehow make my car (tucked right in to the side and almost stationary) narrower so they could fit through without changing formation.

I'm not sure if it was because they were riding in a sportive, or just because they weren't used to riding on such narrow road, but it was certainly a contrast to the fairly sensible behaviour of most cyclists.

In reply to Neil Williams:

What???!!!

Roads are for travelling on, for whatever reason you want to travel. If you are travelling to the cinema, you don't have less right than someone travelling to work, or someone travelling for the sake of travelling. They are public spaces for everyone to use and I generally tend to see more cars than any other type of transport, be it tractors, bikes, horses or pedestrians.

In reply to Carolyn:

I don't think cyclists should ride 3+ abreast on any road. I'd go so far as to say that should be an offence. As a cyclist should be given as much room as a car, there is clearly not space to do this within one lane.

Neil

In reply to tlm:

But you do need to make adequate progress and not cause an obstruction. A large group of cyclists on a narrow winding road causes an obstruction, as there are few if any safe places to overtake. As cyclists have the option to ride not in large groups on such roads, they should do so.

Neil

In reply to Neil Williams:


Hmm.... there are a number of times around towns when cars miserably fail to make adequate progress and cause obstructions. It's a matter off too many humans, not the method of transport.

I think people ought to be considerate of one another and try their best to do what is best for the given situation. I don't think this is any one particular solution.

In reply to a lakeland climber:

Responsibility generally lies with the overtaking party, not the signaling- I know there was an insurance scam called 'Flash and Crash' where drivers on main roads would signals to allow drivers out of side roads but then accelerating into the side of the vehicle pulling out. It only worked on the basis that it was one person's word against another.

In reply to Neil Williams:

I think here we have a fundamental issue.

You believe that somehow, if there is one cyclist - a driver should be able to overtake them without crossing the centre line of the road? Realistically, that's not going to happen, or you're being dangerously close to the cyclist.

So if you need to make a proper overtaking manouevre (eg, cross the white line) in either situation, why does it matter how many abreast they are riding?

In reply to yorkshireman:

"You believe that somehow, if there is one cyclist - a driver should be able to overtake them without crossing the centre line of the road? Realistically, that's not going to happen, or you're being dangerously close to the cyclist."

This isn't true, though, is it?

Let's take a basic single carriageway A road. A coach (quick Google) is just over 2.5m wide, so let's say each lane is 3m wide. Let's say the cyclist and cycle are 50cm (0.5m) wide. A quick Google suggests a car is about 1.8m wide.

So the basic situation being talked about as safe is that the cyclist is riding in the primary position (centre of lane) and the overtaking car is in the middle of the other lane. This means a distance of 1m from the cyclist to the centreline, then a further 0.6m to the car. So the car is 1.6m from the cyclist. The cyclist can increase this by riding further left, and often will choose to.

Now if you have two cyclists, they will have chosen to reduce this distance. This will be by about 0.5m - the first cyclist will move a bit to the left, the second one to their right, and there'll be a gap between them of say 0.5m.

Add a third cyclist, and it's smaller still - possibly down to as little as half a metre.

Therefore, if a cyclist thinks it is safe to be overtaken with 0.5m distance between them, it's also safe to overtake a single cyclist riding in the gutter 0.5m to the right of them. This is clearly not true - suc a manoeuvre is clearly not safe. Therefore, it is unsafe for cyclists to ride three abreast on such a road.

Neil

In reply to Trevers:

If someone indicates left, I assume they are turning left. I will not take that as an indication to overtake.

Neil

In reply to Neil Williams:

If there is no left turn, I will assume the indication to be erroneous.

In reply to the sheep:

That sort of thing would get you an MS50 on your licence if driving a car, and therein lies the problem. You often hear cyclists asking to be treated the same as motorists, so perhaps we should make competitive cycling events on public roads illegal...

It really doesn't make sense to hold competitive events with large groups of people on busy roads. If either traffic or cycling goes up it will get worse.

The solution we saw at lake Tahoe yesterday appears to be to hold it on motorway style dual carriageway roads, with cars just going up and all taking the outside lane. 5 times the same car 4 cars back tried undertaking people and nearly wiped out a cluster of bikes...

In reply to yorkshireman:

As any car driver AND cyclist will know, it IS harder to pass two cyclists abreast than a single cyclist. Probably a combination of the change of direction required means the manouvre takes more room and partially visibility.

In reply to Neil Williams:

Sorry, add 0.5m to the above calculations, I did them based on a 2.5m lane width. Doesn't alter the point though.

Neil

In reply to Dave Reeve: It is obvious that the best solution is to have the group of cyclists to move to the right lane, allowing the car to safely undertake them on the left. As the cyclists go slower, it is only logic that they go on the right, as they have more time before getting hit by an incoming vehicle. Also, cyclists being mostly made of soft tissues, they don't represent a high risk to real vehicles (i.e. not arrogant cyclists on their fixies) coming in front of them at full speed. Actually, I generally exceed the speed limit because I know I am not dangerous when I drive. Of course as a result there is the occasional dent on my Qashqai (I really need it to park on the kerb in front of Waitrose), but it is a price to pay to get rid of hipsters not even paying their road tax. There should be a law.

In reply to Dave Reeve:

It's normal practice on our club runs when we're 'in the lanes' for the riders at the back to shout if they are aware of a vehicle approaching from behind. When the road has enough visibilty to allow a vehicle to pass safely riders will then form in to single file. If the road is too narrow or twisting to allow safe overtaking we will deliberately continue riding 2 abreast to deter drivers from being tempted to pass when they should not. Similarly if we're on a twisting road the riders at the front will warn of approaching vehicles at blind bends.

Sadly, and all too often, you get the impatient idiots who will try and force their way past.

In reply to Neil Williams:

Driving back from the Vercors on Sunday I must have passed dozens of cyclists on windy mountain roads, some in groups, some on their own. I even passed two sets of people on XC skis with wheels on, one followed by two trainers on MTBs (two abreast) - but the same principle.

Every time I overtook one, I gave enough space and always crossed the centre line. From my perspective of a cyclist AND a driver I don't see how you can argue otherwise.


Any?. I've ridden a bike on roads for 26 years and driven a car for 22, so I'm struggling with your logic.

If you cannot overtake two cyclists riding abreast, how are you going to overtake a caravan or a tractor? You shouldn't hold a licence if your driving skills amount to that.

Maybe living in France has made me forget just how aggressive drivers can be to cyclists - and I guess I've missed the sudden upsurge in recreational cycling. Here it's just always been the case, and people generally just get on with it.

In reply to wintertree:

Completely agree. The road is not a racetrack!

In reply to yorkshireman:

"Every time I overtook one, I gave enough space and always crossed the centre line. From my perspective of a cyclist AND a driver I don't see how you can argue otherwise."

Because if overtaking a single cyclist needs the full lane width, overtaking 2 cyclists is never safe because you're closer. Or if it is, one cyclist doesn't need the full lane width.

I always try to give one lane width anyway out of consideration, just as if I see someone on the hard shoulder of a motorway I pull into lane 2 to give them some leeway (hacks me off when people undertake when I do that), but if we're into risk assessments and what is safe, a given distance from a cyclist at a given speed is safe or it isn't, IYSWIM.

Though I must admit that when cycling I prefer a car to overtake giving about 1.5m to my right if there's not room to cross the centreline fully than to sit behind me, slowly and with frustration building.

Neil

In reply to Lord of Starkness: Good to know that most groups of cyclists are being proactive in trying to coexist with cars etc and that some indication of when it would be safe to pass the group might be given. Of course the responsibility for overtaking has to be with the vehicle driver but understanding what's going on in the group is useful background.

A bit of consideration on both sides goes a long way....

In reply to GrahamD:

True, but much easier than overtaking a tractor or a horse and cart that you cant see through

In reply to a lakeland climber:


It's highly unlikely I'd ignore an indication to slow down or stop. As for passing, that's my decision and mine alone. Ultimately if I cause an accident overtaking, it's my responsibility, not the would-be helpful person waving their arms.

Same when overtaking cyclists. I've had cyclists waving me past in situations that were clearly unsafe. It might be hard to understand when I was in a safe'ish steel box and they were not but nevertheless it has happened.

I live in an area that's heavily used by recreational cyclists and the only time I feel frustrated being held up is when they could very easily let a car pass but don't for several minutes at a time. Which is rare but happens.

I'm a recreational cyclist too although groups aren't my thing.

In reply to balmybaldwin:


True enough. I'll add that one to the "down the farm" forum

In reply to Neil Williams:


We're either talking about different things, or you're willfully missing the point.

If there is nothing coming in the opposite direction, it is safe to overtake, and it shouldn't matter if the cyclist is two abreast or single file. If there is stuff coming towards you, and as some people seem to think, cyclists should tuck into single file so that a car can squeeze past, then that's obviously wrong, and shouldn't be attempted.

So on that reasoning, why does it matter whether cyclists are single file or not? As stated by others, passing 10 riders doing 2 abreast is quicker and safer than a line twice as long of cyclists in single file.

In reply to yorkshireman:

You're ignoring the fact that some roads are wide enough to overtake, safely, a single cyclist when there is oncoming traffic, but not a car or two cyclists, and definitely not three.

Neil

In reply to Neil Williams:

And FWIW, a single line of cyclists with good gaps between them is the easiest to overtake. If cyclists are cycling nose to tail and won't drop back a bit to allow this as car drivers would if being overtaken by another car, they are being inconsiderate and causing an obstruction.

Neil

In reply to Neil Williams:
When I did the advanced driver training, there was a memorable demonstration of how long 'hold-ups' hold you up.
Situations that make you stop cause the biggest delays - but a long long wait for a right turn onto a main road that I guessed as having lasted 4 mins was in fact just 40 seconds as timed by the instructor.
Cycle packs aren't stationary but are rolling at between 10 and 20 mph, on little roads that go nowhere and where the speed limit, though nominally 60mph is probably not safe above 20 mph anyway.
35 of us went to France, same type of roads as Kent, absolute absence of 4x4 vehicles weaving around hooting and cutting in halfway though an overtake. These are drivers who would be mildly unhappy to be stuck in a stationary line of cars (which would really cause a delay), but who become murderous at a reduction of speed of 5-10mph if its caused by a cyclepack.
Why ride in groups? It makes the rider more visible, as well as protection against a headwind. The real scare is the cut-in sideways into the group when an oncoming car, surprise surprise, appears around the blind corner.

In reply to Neil Williams:

That sounds like a recipe for disaster to be honest, having seen cars try to nip past one at a time, jumping on the brakes, cutting in and out - and why some clubs prefer to ride as a group 2 abreast and wait for it to be safe to overtake all at once. It takes quite a while for a group of half a dozen riders to line out, and then to get an appropriate distance between to allow a car to hop in and out. By which time the road might be wide enough for the driver to get past (or equally, too narrow and the car's stuck in the middle).

You are doubtless an incredibly skilled driver and are completely aware of where you are in relation to others, but experience suggests that very few others are as good as you, and invariably cause riders to have to take avoiding action or jump on the brakes unless you leave twenty yards between riders. That is going to rather spoil your day if you have to do that every time a car comes up behind you - however I suppose if you believe cyclists are an inconvenience that should get out of your way then maybe you don't care about that.

I'd rather carry on being as considerate as possible whilst taking account of my own right to use the road and staying as safe as possible.

In reply to Dave Reeve:

I've ridden solo rides and group rides, and i would say i feel safer riding in a group.

So many people are saying being behind a group is like the size of a Arctic Lorry, well you never see an advertisement saying "THINK Arctic Lorries," its always "THINK Bike."
The bigger the object the easier it is to see.

I was hit off my bike in Spain just over a month ago. I could hear the car coming, i was over to the right hand side, with plenty of room on the left (over a lane and a half). You could see half a mile ahead, with no other cars in site. The car clipped my rear wheel, throwing me off, completely screwing my rear wheel. The driver stopped and basically said, he didn't see me. Thankfully he bought me a new set of rims and gave me a lift home. I was lucky.

I'll be honest, if i ride in a group 2 abreast and I'm annoying a driver who is too inpatient to wait for a safe opportunity to overtake, I couldn't care on the principle of at least he knows I'm there! As a group we do pull over, if we have a build up of traffic behind (rare). On narrow roads we will drop to single file, again to avoid slowing drivers.

I honestly can say Britain is terrible for driver attitude to cyclists, its really is. Mainly down to poor knowledge and a arrogant behaviour trait which seems to be passed from one to another. Those who get inpatient should just relax, take up a relaxing, enjoyable sport. Maybe cycling where you will begin to appreciate the outdoors, and see the roads in a different light, away from the "i pay road tax" attitude.

In reply to andy:

"That is going to rather spoil your day if you have to do that every time a car comes up behind you - however I suppose if you believe cyclists are an inconvenience that should get out of your way then maybe you don't care about that."

That's one, somewhat biased way to put it. Another way is that slower users of the road should be considerate of faster users and allow them to pass where safe. In return, faster users need to be careful and considerate around slower, more vulnerable users.

Depending on the road concerned, that might mean *not* riding in packs, or it might mean pulling over periodically.

Neil

In reply to RCJ:

"Maybe cycling where you will begin to appreciate the outdoors, and see the roads in a different light, away from the "i pay road tax" attitude."

You know what? I cycle, though mainly as a mode of transport, not in a club, so I am mostly found on the roads alone.

Neil

In reply to RCJ:

"As a group we do pull over, if we have a build up of traffic behind (rare). On narrow roads we will drop to single file, again to avoid slowing drivers."

Good to hear it. It sounds like you are being considerate of other road users as well as enjoying your sport.

(genuinely, not being sarcastic!)

Neil

In reply to Neil Williams:

You're the one that said roads aren't there for enjoyment - which kind of suggests you might think people should get out of your way - if that's not your position then apologies, misunderstood.


Both the clubs I ride with hardly ever ride in groups of more than 10-12 but we'll rarely, if ever, pull over and stop - mainly because we know the roads we ride on and that there's always somewhere somewhere within half a mile max (so let's say between 1 and 2 minutes travelling time) to overtake. For 10 bikes to stop requires someone to decide to stop in plenty of time, choose somewhere with enough room for 10-12 bikes to pull over and then get going again safely - or alternatively, and thankfully, have a bit of mutual consideration between drivers (which virtually all of us are, and often have places to go in the Dales) and cyclists - where drivers accept you're doing your best not to hold them up and we do our best to enjoy our ride safely and get some miles in.

In reply to Neil Williams:

Its not difficult for both parties to be on the road together.

Cyclists can be just as much to blame as drivers. I will never dispute that comment.
I think alot of drivers don't realise is the majority of a time a cyclist will ride how they feel safe. I for one will never ride near the gutter, i'll be out a little (not a dangerous amount), to stay away from the C*** at the side of the road, alot of drivers (in UK) get annoyed at this, like I'm taking up "their" lane, but i bet if i said to them, every 2 miles i'll slash your tyres until you reach your destination, they'll understand why we stay away from the gutter.

The road isn't just for vehicles with engines, and it isn't just for cyclists. Unfortunately, this disagreement will always keep going... until they invent flying cars. Even then there will be one person that "cant get it up" in the air so will beep behind for a few miles.

In reply to andy:

My point previously was more that those needing to get somewhere probably take priority over those using roads slowly for enjoyment (think Sunday drivers), so the latter should do their best to allow the former to proceed without too much delay, but equally the former should be considerate of the safety of the latter by e.g. avoiding dangerous overtaking. But I don't think cyclists are unwelcome on the road, there just needs to be consideration on both sides, rather than insistence on rights (to cycle or to drive fast).

Neil

In reply to Neil Williams:

Are you a Mini Cab driver?

In reply to yesbutnobutyesbut:

Nope. And when you make a one sided quote of half my message, please have the manners to indicate this.

Neil

In reply to Neil Williams:

So by that logic taxis have priority over those needing to get somewhere as surely earning money is more important than getting somewhere, and of course those driving to work take priority over those driving to the crag, because that's using the roads for enjoyment. Trucks take priority over everyone, unless of course the truck has finished working and is now just being used to get somewhere for enjoyment.

Did you watch the Olympics or the tour last year? Did you appreciate the achievements of Sir Bradley et al. Does he have more right to ride on the road in a group, because he has to train, and that's his job, so he's using the road for work, so he must take priority over everyone.

Or maybe we should not make ridiculous comments about who has more right to be on the road, take a deep breath, and accept that the two mins lost sat behind a bike on our journey out of the approx 37 million we're likely to be alive if we live till 70 really isn't that significant, and probably way less than we've wasted that day by doing something that someone else considers irrelevant. Get a grip.

Last weekend I was on a longish descent doing 50mph, when a car comes up behind tooting. I was sat in the middle of the lane because on a twisty descent there was no way it was safe for him to squeeze past, even though he felt he could. Slightly further down the hill there was a passing lane (I'm still doing around 50mph) and I slowed slightly, moved over and he came past. 500m further down the hill and he's sat behind a slow moving truck doing around 30mph though guess what - no tooting, no complaining, it's okay to be sat behind a truck but not behind a bike. It's the attitudes that need to change, the actual inconvenience really is insignificant.

In reply to Neil Williams: I've no doubt at all that you're as considerate and careful a driver as I hope I am a cyclist - however I do think that unless you've ridden in a group (perhaps even more so if you regularly cycle but on your own) there are some things that are different in a group. Ignoring tim's suggestion that people should simply not ride in groups in case they get in his way, there are some things that are different about riding in a group.

Firstly this idea of stopping. We actually do stop at most junctions in case anyone's been dropped, but as I said earlier stopping a group safely, and as importantly, setting off agin safely isn't as straightforward as when you're on your own - you need time and space to do it - that's why junctions are usually a pretty good place.

Secondly, spreading out and leaving suitable gaps isn't as easily done as you might think - it's certainly disruptive and inconvenient, so unless there's a long stretch of road with no hope of passing, it's often quicker and safer to stay together.

And finally, as was mentioned earlier, groups do travel surprisingly fast and at a closer speed to traffic than you might think, and on country roads especially - 20-25mph on the flat, even for our puntery group isn't unusual - on a fast main road (which we avoid) then obviously there's a significant sped difference, and on the 2 mile stretch of the A59 we ride on most rides we're in single file, well in to the left and cars can pass without getting near the centre line - doesn't stop the occasional one brushing your elbow or honking their horn, but on the whole we get that bit out of the way with no bother.

You should try riding in a group some time - it's fun and fast!

In reply to rmt:

Delays due to cyclists are minimal - the difference between rush hour & 2am is not the lack of cyclists.

To state the obvious cars, vans, lorries & buses etc are the cause of congestion delays. It was notable in Copenhagen that there were loads of cyclists and the vehicle traffic was moving much better than here in the UK.
Cyclists appear to reduce delays and don't compete for parking spaces.

In reply to Neil Williams:
If you have priority then just turn on your blue lights & siren.

Otherwise behave with good manners like the Highway Code tells you.

In English at school we were taught the difference between having a right (essentially irrevocable) and having a licence (permission you must obtain and can be withdrawn).

In reply to elsewhere:


The same applies to cyclists.

Rule 66:

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

https://www.gov.uk/rules-for-cyclists-59-to-82/overview-59-to-71

In reply to andy:



Is riding in a group 10-12 "doing your best" to avoid holding people up. It isn't necessary so why not show some consideration and avoid doing it?

In reply to timjones: I'll feed the troll...why not use an alternative form of transport to the car ? Often the journey is either unnecessary or can easily be accomplished without belching out CO2 and other nasties. It would show some consideration to the planet and your fellow creatures.

In reply to lummox:
Yeah, it's an interesting distinction we draw between a bike ride, which is a leisure activity and hence an unnecessary obstruction to Serious Road Users, and a trip to go walking / climbing / to the garden centre / visiting friends, which are Essential Travel and hence shouldn't be held up...

In reply to Calder:
Yes, good manners for all.

In reply to Ramblin dave: But cyclists are arrogant while Ikea shoppers are the cream of humanity.

Serioulsy I don't understnad why anyone should motivate their use of the roads.

In reply to timjones:


So if something isnt necessary then it shouldnt happen.
Well thats a novel approach to reduce road usage, although I take it that its your definition of "necessary" that should be used and hence caravans/tractors during rush hour will still remain?

In reply to dissonance:

What the hell makes you think I want to stop them using the road? The suggestion is that if they travelled in well spaced pairs it would be significantly easier to pass them safely. It's not about either party having more rights to travel for their chosen reasons, it's abut using common sense to co-exist safely on the roads.

In reply to lummox:

Who is trolling?

Given that you don't know the length or purpose of other peoples journeys you are I'll placed to make such a half arsed suggestion!

In reply to Ramblin dave:

Wake up at the back

The discussion isn't about the purpose of any one journey, it's about everyone using consideration during the journey to get everyone safely to our destinations.

In reply to timjones:


So, in other words yuou want to stop them using the road unless they use it the way you feel fit.
So would you be ok with, say, farm vehicles using a trailer being banned from the roads from 8-10am, 12-2,3-7pm during the week and then probably for the entire weekend.


and yet its others who you feel should change to suit your prejudices.

In reply to dissonance:


Well obviously: its the driver being inconvenienced by the cyclists, not vice versa

In reply to dissonance:



For crying out loud, are you being deliberately obtuse?

What the hell have farm vehicles got to do with this discussion on keeping cyclists safe on the road?

Do you get a kick out of trying to provoke anyone who doesn't belong to your tribe?

In reply to dissonance:

Interestingly lorries are banned from the roads on Sundays in a number of European countries.

Neil

In reply to GrahamD:

The inconvience is all in dissonances head. He can't seem to accept that a motorist would ever make a suggestion with the intention of making everyone's journey safer. He appears to work in the assumption that motorists are only ever motivated by a desire to complete their own journey as quickly as possible.

In reply to timjones:


Lets take what you said initially.
"Consideration cuts both ways!"
then
"It's about consideration for others. It shouldn't be necessary to impose limits. Why do you all need to travel the same route at the same time?"
then
"Is riding in a group 10-12 "doing your best" to avoid holding people up"

Strange how your concern about safety comes up rather late isnt it?
Oh and for the safety malarkey, feel free to provide some evidence showing it is safer to ride in spread out pairs. I am guessing you will fail though, if just for the reason that gathering that info would be a challenge.


My tribe? I aint a roadie and really dont like riding in groups of more than 3-4. However I dont see why people shouldnt be allowed to ride as they like considering the minimal impact.

In reply to Dave Reeve:

If we want to improve safety let's reduce speed limits to 20mph, the cars and cyclist will be moving at similar speeds

In reply to Beat me to it!:

That is certainly a viable option in some places, e.g. city streets. I can see it being the case throughout central London within a small number of years.

Neil

In reply to dissonance:

The whole discussion is about safety, it's even on the title. Therefore I was talking about safety, it's not exactly rocket sceince! Sadly I once again underestimated your willingness to falsely ascribe motives to others.

As for evidence, experience has to count for something, on anything other than wide straight roads it is significantly easier to pass smaller individual vehicles or groups of vehicles. Deliberately making choices that make it harder to pass safely does little to contribute to overall road safety IMO.

You don't have to agree with that opinion but making lazy assumptions about the motivations of someone who makes a contribution to a thread on road safety does nothing to further your cause.

In reply to timjones:


Which is why you talk all about your convenience. Its fairly obvious where your interests lie.


Again you are confusing your personal convenience with safety. Just because it is easier to pass doesnt make it safer for the person being passed. It is significantly easier to pass someone riding in the gutter it is not however safer for the rider. Hence why cyclists are advised not to do it.


Perhaps then you should come out with some contributions that are slightly more thoughtful and accurate than ones than just happen to make life convenient for you. Your position has been made clear over many threads, some concern trolling really doesnt reverse that.

In reply to dissonance:

You are missing a very important point. If you deliberately compromise the 'convenience' of the majority of road users, you will compromise safety because one of those inconvenienced users WILL do something stupid. Saying its not fair or its the drivers fault is pointless because its the cyclist that comes off worst.

In reply to GrahamD: this talk of inconveniencing road users is precisely why we need a complete change in attitude towards people using modes of transport other than those with an engine.

Yours, owner of two cars and a few bikes.

In reply to lummox:

"We" need to completely change the attitude of everyone else ? who are "we" and wnho are "they" and when has such a policy ever achieved anything ? Yes, it would be great if the attitude of some car users changed just as it would be great if the attitude of some cyclists changed so they realised there is no action without consequence - irrespective of what they think should be the case.



Me too. I hate riding in groups of more than 2 or 3 though.

In reply to dissonance:

FFS, what is concern trolling other than a figment of your imagination? Did I piss on your chips in a past life

I am thoroughly baffled as to why you cannot comprehend the simple principle of making it easier for other road users to pass safely. The easier you make it the less likely it is that someone will get impatient and make a mistake.

Carefully passing well spaced individual cyclists or small groups is a pleasure, you're all progressing, showing consideration and looking after one another. Waiting for longer to safely pass a larger group with other drivers queuing behind you is no pleasure for anyone.

In reply to timjones:


no its because you keep sprouting uninformed rubbish.


Its because your definition of safe seems to be convenient for the person passing.


Once again this is wrong. Making it easy to pass doesnt make it safe since it removes any fallback options.
That is why no one, sensible, suggests cycling in the gutter. It is dangerous.
The same applies with groups.


Apart from in the real world the same unbalanced drivers who get upset with a group of riders will also ride dangerously near individuals.

In reply to dissonance:





How does passing smaller groups or even smaller vehicles remove fallback options?


Why are you once again introducing other issues into a discussion on a specific situation?


Bollocks, a number of people have suggested travelling in smaller groups, some of them have even been cyclists.


So the unbalanced will continue in their behaviour, there's a surprise! In the meantime what benefit are you aiming to achieve with your clumsy attempts to antagonise people who are actually on your side?

In reply to timjones:


As others have mentioned unless you actually remove the group entirely you run into issues of car drivers forcing their way into the middle of the group once it spreads out a little. the standard give a inch lose a metre.


Because you keep stating out as fact a false claim. It is simply not the case that making it easier to pass is safer for the person being passed.


and others have not, try and remember I dont ride as a large group. A large group will generally be safer its just that many dont like them and of course once you hit a certain size it does become inconvenient to road users.
Say if you ride as a group of 400 any risk of dangerous overtaking would vanish apart from for utter psychos who would just as happily take out an individual. However that would be dubious riding in that size group.


Oh dont take the piss. Your attitude is anti cylist through and through.

In reply to dissonance:

Can I ask what the fallback options are for a motorist passing a large group?

For what it's worth I think the point about overtaking small groups was based on them being well spaced, rather than just a few yards apart.

Request to peletons.

If a car has hung back before overtaking considerately just before a junction, don't then re-overtake at the junction. Just wait a couple of seconds to allow the car to pull out and stay ahead. Thanks.

In reply to Calder:

wait until it's safe to overtake

In reply to elsewhere:

That's not really a fallback option is it. And applies to overtaking lone cyclists, small groups, large groups, tractors, slow cars, fast cars, UFO's, etc...

In reply to Calder:

Wait til it's safe to do so. It's really not that hard.


But I hope I (and others) have pointed out that splitting a group of 10-12 into tim's preference for 2's thirty or forty yards apart takes more time and than simply waiting for a decent place to overtake. Tim's solution is therefore that people shouldn't go out in groups of more than 2 or 3. This is fine if you don't like riding with your mates, or don't want to cover fairly large distances quickly (and more safely, ironically - I feel much safer with 10 people lit up like xmas trees on a Wednesday night than I would with one other rider). So tim's solution is to not ride in groups at all, and to go out in pairs so as to not hold up a small number of impatient drivers.

But the fact remains that riding in a group of 10-12 for some of us is faster, more fun and is an intrinsic part of our sport. I honestly thought tim was trolling (particularly with his side-splitting comedy remarks about minibuses) but it seems he wasn't. It seems that he genuinely thinks that motorists' convenience takes precedence over a large part of the population's desire to take part in a healthy pastime in the way they choose to. So whilst I'll continue to do what I can to stay safe and not inconvenience other road users, people like that can nob right off.

In reply to Calder:

Just imagine the next group of people on bikes you need to overtake is tim on his tractor. Then wait til it's safe to overtake. Don't start making assumptions about what they "ought to do" as it might not be as easy, or safe, or sensible as it seems from where you're sat.

In reply to andy:



Some will, of course. Some will overtake anyway. It won't take many incidents for there to be a law change and I'll bet the law change is to ban groups of cyclists.

In reply to GrahamD:

Funny how this was completely ignored earlier:

In reply to Calder: Apparently that doesn't count. The HWC is a bit like the bible I think - you select the verses you find useful.

In reply to Dave Reeve:
If there was a large group of people walking along a path, spreadout in such a way that a cyclist couldn't get around them without a collision, what should happen? Pedestrians acknowledge that they are moving much slower than the cyclist and politely move over to allow the cyclist through? Cyclist politely move along at walking pace behind the group for an indefinite period of time?

Just a thought.

In reply to GrahamD:

How many "incidents" are there? Apart from the tragedy in Wales a year or two back that was caused by a driver coming round a corner too fast and hitting some ice, the fact of the matter is nearly all injuries and fatalities occur where there ISN'T a group - as I posted earlier I feel safer in a group, particularly after dark.

And I'll bet you that it isn't...

This Topic is going beyond stupid at times.

In my opinion there are plenty of people who don't deserve to drive. If you can't respect other road users, whether that be cars, motorbikes, lorries, cyclists etc you should consider handing your license in! You have no more right on the road than anyone else.

Safety is everyones part. If you feel unsafe passing any form of transport you are unfit for the road. It states in the highway code, that road users should take extra care when overtaking vulnerable vehicles.

I for one hold up my hand and say sorry if i mess up on my bike, but motorists often don't due to being misinformed. In my experience (could be different elsewhere) its the middle aged male that causes the most grief!
Lots of my cycling friends wear camera's on rides, for sometimes inevitable confrontation, which is reported to the police. Those unhappy with the way they are treated on the roads, i urge you to buy a camera and record your incidents, and report them. This stands for ALL motorists.
Please note, if you record a cyclist group for cycling at 20mph and holding you up in your 50 zone, record the tractor too that does the same, because it is no different!

OT: Safest way to overtake, its to hold back until you feel comfortable to do so. Put yourself in the cyclists shoes, and decide would i be happy a car passing me this way? If the answers yes, go for it.

In reply to RCJ:

I saw a tractor on the dual carriageway on the way to work the other day. It was doing at least 55 mph. And I regularly see them driving through my village at silly speeds, cutting corners with their wide trailers and generally driving hazardously.

PS. People on the school run are easily the most inconsiderate of all drivers. Fact.

In reply to Dave Reeve:
Highway code rule 163: give motorcyclists, cyclists and horse riders at least as much room as you would when overtaking a car (see Rules 211 to 213 and 214 to 215).
Ask yourself would you overtake a car into the face of oncoming traffic? Of course you wouldn't. By the same degree, you shouldn't overtake a cycle either. The CTC advises that you should never ride too far to the left as this puts you in danger:-
i) from pedestrians entering the road and not looking
ii) poor road surfaces
iii) road debris
iv) it also does not leave you any room to maneuver should an emergency arise (such as avoiding any of the above).

So if you have to allow as much room as a car for a single cyclist, then you would have to move over into the other carriageway. So 2 cyclists riding abreast causes you no much inconvenience that a single rider.

In answer to your specific question. The safest way is to remain behind until you can access their speed. Then you can judge how much time / space you need to complete the overtake safely. You then wait for a suitable size gap in the traffic and then complete the overtake. It's not difficult is it? Are you in such a hurry that you absolutely cannot be held up for even a minute or two?

In reply to Smiffy: To be fair to the OP I think he was asking a genuine question and wanting to know the best way of doing so.

In reply to andy:
Yeah fair point. Most of my points were aimed at others in the thread who seem to have an issue with overtaking cyclists riding in groups.
So apologies to Dave Reeve, my criticism was not aimed at you. The last paragraph is my reply to your question.

In reply to Calder:


it helps if you include the entire rule.

You should
(couple of other statements dropped since irrelevant)
never ride more than two abreast, and ride in single file on narrow or busy roads and when riding round bends


Note the should and then read the various comments about why some groups dont ride in single file. I know personally when i come across the sunday gangs it would be far harder to go safely past them if they were spread out in single file.

In reply to dissonance:

Learn to read you muppet. What do you think I mean by a well spaced?


Bollocks. If it's easier to pass you will get less chancers making dodgy passes and everyone will be safer.


Yes, opinions will differ, that's fair enough. What pisses me off is your ignorant persistance in claiming that you know my motivations better than I do.


Your're welcome to think that. Unfortunately I know how totally wrong you are. I must make a mental not to never respect or believe any other bollocks that you may spout in future!

In reply to Calder:

Thank god someone has the intelligence to grasp a very simple concept

In reply to andy:

You're falling into the trap of believing the erroneous bollocks that dissonance is spouting! If you're ever stuck behind me on a tractor you will have strayed off the road be riding around a field

In reply to dissonance:

Rule 163 is also a 'should' rather than a 'must' which would be a legal requirement.

163
Overtake only when it is safe and legal to do so. You should
- give motorcyclists, cyclists and horse riders at least as much room as you would when overtaking a car.

In reply to timjones: What do you define as a small group and when does this change to a large group.

In reply to timjones:

Actually the opposite happens - one or two cars depending on the gap between the cyclists go past then another will try to push in even though it's obvious before they begin the manoeuvre that there isn't enough room.

Rest of posting ignored as it's personal insults.

ALC

In reply to a lakeland climber: I hope Tim isn't so angry when he's driving his tractor..

In reply to a lakeland climber:

Oh and "safe" doesn't mean "safe for you" but "safe for all road users" that includes yourself, the vehicle/bike you are overtaking and any other traffic in the area especially vehicles travelling in the opposite direction.

ALC

In reply to a lakeland climber:

That's why I said well spaced. I was thinking of cyclists setting out at intervals of maybe a few minutes to allow gaps where this wouldn't happen.


Feel free to ignore the rest of it. The personal insults were aimed at someone who is persisantly being deliberately insulting by effectively accusing me of lying about my motives ;(

In reply to Andrew W:

Is there a definitive answer. It's likely to change depending on the nature of the road and the group.

12 or even cyclists would most liekly be fine on a straight wide A road but a potential and avoidable risk on a steep climb on a winding B road IMO.

The safest way to pass groups of cyclists is with a laxative.

I'll get my coat.

In reply to timjones:

So how do you propose that a number of cyclists (or indeed any road user) positions themselves along a winding road at, for example, two minute intervals and maintain that gap? Two minutes at 15mph is half a mile, most roads round here have maybe two hundred yards visibility on average.

Not very well thought through.

ALC

In reply to lummox:

FFS I would hope I'm allowed to be as angry as I like when driving around a field with no-one else in it!

Remind me what they say about assumption making as ass of......

In reply to GrantM:


and? Although of course the safe and legal part isnt a should so its the add on top which is a should.

In reply to a lakeland climber:

Is that any excuse for not even making an effort to spread out?

In reply to timjones:

I was out riding yesterday afternoon, alone, and was on a long climb and was approaching the top of the climb which happened to be the steepest part. A vehicle comes up behind me and rather than wait maybe ten seconds until I was over the brow the driver decided to sneak past me even though he couldn't see more than 30 metres ahead. coming the other way were three cars so he had to pull even closer to me. If the road had been narrower then he'd have simply pulled left in to me.

This isn't about the size of groups of cyclists, it's about the inconsiderate nature of many drivers towards other road users. If I'm driving down a country road and came across you moving some cows or sheep between fields then I'm not going to rev my engine and push through so why should I put up with other road users trying to bully me when I'm acting perfectly legitimately?

ALC

In reply to timjones:


knowing you it will be clueless.


Wrong. Again lets take the clear cut case of the primary and secondary cycling positions. Are you seriously suggesting those are wrong since it makes it harder to pass?
The easier it is to pass the more likely someone will try it when its not suitable.


well stop drivelling about subjects you dont understand and avoid coming out with shite like "convenience" and "holding people up". If all you come out with is dont do something then dont be surprised if the assumption is you want the activity stopping.
What pisses me off is that you have people coming out with comments that vastly increase the risk to cyclists, not just because some people might follow it but also that others use it as an excuse to drive like idiots.


shit happens. I discard anything you say on cycling as being shite so guess we are even. The only problem is some people might treat your ramblings as evidence based.

In reply to Dave Reeve: bikes should be on the path, avoid the roads.

In reply to unclesamsauntibess: 0/10. Must try much, much harder.

In reply to dissonance:

Thank god the majority of cyclists are politer than you!


Am I disputing what you call "the primary and secondary cycling positions" ?


Have I said don't go out on your cycle?


Where have I made a comment that "vastly increase the risk to cyclists"?


If you discard it why are you going to such lengths to effectively accuse me of lying about my motivation?

If you're so keen on evidence then feel free to provide your evidence that cycling in groups is safer.

In reply to unclesamsauntibess:
Why so? (please do not trot out the usual road tax drivel).
There is no reason why cyclists, horses or even pedestrians (within reason) cannot use the same roads as motor vehicles. All it requires is that the less vulnerable party gives due consideration for the safety of more venerable party, and that all parties share the roads.

In reply to a lakeland climber:

You digress! I've not even mentioned the cyclist that undertook me and jumped the rd light I was waiting at yesterday

There are bad examples in all walks of life, fortunately that doesn't mean that the rest of us shouldn't talk to one another.

In reply to timjones:

No I'm not! I'm simply demonstrating that many drivers are incapable of behaving responsibly even when faced with the smallest possible "group" of cyclists, namely one.

Now there are degrees of bad or inconsiderate behaviour which vary from "why did they do that?" to plainly illegal (your red light jumper). The vast majority behave decently but there is a small minority who don't.

So far in this thread you've shown no signs of understanding why a group of cyclists is actually safer "holding up" traffic when going round bends than if they spread out in a single line. Would you overtake a horse and trap in the same situation? They are likely to be going at the same speed and take up roughly the same amount of room on the road.

A couple of years ago I got caught speeding and went on a speed awareness course. One of the points made was just how little time is "lost" due to "hold ups" or even being considerate. The example given was about the two second rule and having people cut in to the gap: if you leave a two second gap between you and the car in front and once a minute someone pulls in to that gap so you have to drop back to maintain the two seconds then over a two hour journey you are delayed by just two minutes.

If you have to drop your speed from 40mph to 15mph for 30 seconds whilst you wait for the group of cyclists/horse and trap to get round the bend then you are only delayed by a few seconds. If there are multiple groups as per your suggestion then you are going to be delayed by a lot longer. Unless of course you bully your way past.

ALC

In reply to a lakeland climber:

You are arguing for one motorist. A big group of cyclists is likely to have caused a queue of cars beind and the dynamics of overtaking are very different. You can bet as soon as the first car goes, two or 3 cars will be on its tail.

Overtaking in stages has to reduce the probability of a long and pissed off queue forming to start with.

In reply to GrahamD:

At most round here you get two or three, we keep watch on what's behind and wave them through when it's safe to do so. It might be that there's somewhere to pull in to let them pass in which case we'll do so but otherwise it's safer for us to continue. If the motorists don't wish to pass then we've done what we can to help them on their way.

See further up the thread as to why having gaps in the group isn't safe.

ALC

In reply to a lakeland climber:

Maybe you aren't riding in a typical group in a typical location, then ? try making progress in a car through the Peak district on a Sunday !

I would say there are 'gaps' and there are 'gaps'. Deliberately restricting the opportunities for overtaking by only allowing overtaking on long straights and forceing a queue of cars to make an 'all or nothing' decision is, IMO, asking for trouble.

In reply to GrahamD:

Hypothetical scenario - a group of twelve cyclists out on a quiet road, let's say a car in each direction every minute and getting past without problems. Then the road becomes twisty for about 400 metres, at the same time a group of cars comes up behind. Let's say that the cyclist decide to split in to four groups of three. How long do you think that's going to take? The cyclists can't suddenly brake to let some of their number go off the front as it's going to force the cars to take avoiding action.

Probably by the time the group is spread out in the manner suggested then the whole caravan will be through the twisty bit anyway.

As I asked previously, if it was a horse and trap would you overtake?

ALC

In reply to a lakeland climber:

A horse and trap is not really relevant (or common). Cycle gangs are common and getting more so.

Typical A roads aren't straight with 400m of twisty - they tend to be slightly twisty for long periods with limited overtaking room between bends. Given a sufficiently big group, the chances of overtaking on a road like the one from Windermere to Ambleside drops to zero.(to take an example in your neck of of the woods but the Peak is packed with similar A roads)

In reply to GrahamD:

It's the Dales. On a Sunday.

The thing here is there's an imbalance of knowledge. I, and everyone I ride with, drive a car. I know what it's like to be held up by slower moving traffic. But the difference with me and ALC (and others) is we also know what it's like to ride in a group of bikes - we know that it's not as easy as "just spread out", we know that it's not as easy as "just pull over" - because those manoeuvres take time (for which read space) and require the right bit of road to do them on. If you've never ridden a bike at a respectable speed, in a group, you simply have no idea what you're talking about - sorry, but that's the way it is. If you're sat in a car, wanting to do 40mph and there's some bikes doing 20mph then it can look so obvious that they should simply get out of your way - but riding in a group, particularly close together, takes discipline, skill and concentration, and things have to happen relatively slowly - if you want to see it in action see the pile ups in a pro bike race when someone touches wheels - a group of people on bikes is full of shouts, hand signals and moves designed to keep the group moving at speed without causing an accident.

Now if you're tim you just come to the simple conclusion that people should simply ride in 2's - that's a solution that suits him (oh - sorry - it's "safer") but it doesn't suits hundreds of thousands of club cyclists who find group riding to be faster, more fun and, sorry tim - safer.

In reply to a lakeland climber: What I've got out of this discussion so far is more understanding of the way a group of cyclists is likely to behave the next time I meet one and why the groups are formed the way they are.

I think the point made about how we as motorists generally behave reasonably behind a slow moving lorry or tractor whereas cyclists can cause immediate frustration for some motorists was well made. I'm not perfect as a motorist but I have at times been hooted by cars behind me when I didn't judge it safe to overtake a cyclist but never a lorry...

The other point about groups or even individual cyclists not getting back in front at a junction when you're stopped was also well made. I know cyclists are perfectly within their rights to do so but if it's been difficult to overtake in the first place it's a bit frustrating.

Thanks for the mostly constructive comments..

In reply to andy: You are basically saying you are racing and as a result you can't adjust your road position. Roads aren't intended for racing but for getting from A to B. If riding in a peleton is really so unwieldly, I would suggest that is another reason not to do so on public roads.

In reply to a lakeland climber:

For the final time of saying and not insulting you because you've not yet spent a protracted amount of time insinuating that I'm lying about my motives

I'm not bothered about the hold up because as you say it is minimal, I realised that blindingly obvious fact before I had to do my speed awarenesss course! I may be wrong but I honestly believe that it is safer to travel in small groups. You are correct that it may even take slightly longer to pass a number of smaller groups, well done for being the first person that is bright enough to spot it, but if it was safer would that matter?

I'd sooner see the dangerous drivers or riders dealt with instead of adopting practices that if used in the wrong place may increase the risk of good drivers making an honest mistake and misjudging the size of a group.

In reply to andy: I drive about 20,000 miles a year on all types of road all over the country. I reckon if I added up all the time I was 'held up' by cyclists over a whole year it would at a push amount to about 20 minutes. This whole thing is just not an issue to anyone other than the most impatient and selfish motorists out there imho.

In reply to a lakeland climber:

If a study of the route indicates that this is going to be necessary then surely the answer is to set out in smaller groups?

In reply to MG:

Sigh... no, not racing. I'm trying to point out that a GROUP of bikes is not one big entity that can all take an action at the same time. So when you say to your passenger "Eee, look our Maureen, they could've all stopped there" it's not as simple as that - the guys at the front have to spot the place, far enough in advance to communicate back in the group that they're stopping. And by the time they've done that safely either the chance has gone. The point about the pro peleton is that that's guys who ride bikes for a living and if something unexpected happens people fall off.

I must say I do feel sorry for you folks who seem to be held up by vast groups of cyclists wherever you go - I live within ten miles of the biggest cycling club in the country (1500 members, club rides 5 or 6 days a week) and apart from seeing the Aire Valley lads on the A625 (nice and wide, easy to overtake) if I'm up early on Saturday I can't remember being held up by a group of cyclists in the last five years - the last time I can recall was a group tim would have approved of because there was two of them on the road up to Malham - they stayed in primary position because in their view it wasn't safe to overtake, so we all sat there for what must've been fifteen or twenty seconds until there was a straight and we went past.

In reply to timjones:

Jeez - the whole point is it's NOT necessary - you wait til you're past the 400m long twisty section.

In reply to yesbutnobutyesbut:

I (thankfully) don't even drive half of that, but my experience (driving in a very popular area for cycling) would mirror yours.

In reply to andy:
far enough in advance to communicate back in the group that they're stopping.

And you think that's fine? Sounds like riding dangerously close together to me. One of the more basic rules of the road is being able to stop before hitting the thing in front of you. Not always observed of course

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-kent-23970047

In reply to andy:

It is only rarely a practical problem, I agree, but the attitude doesn't help general harmony.

In reply to MG: This is becoming pointless - you're trying to debate something that you have absolutely no experience of. Yes - if someone were to fall off or stop suddenly it causes a problem. So you do lots of things to avoid that happening, like signals, shouts etc. I've ridden literally thousands of miles this year in a group and we've never had a crash - because we're careful and don't stop suddenly. I've never seen the sort of attitude that people on this thread seem to hold in Spain, France or Italy - where generally the standard of driving is worse than the UK.

For the last time - riding in a group of a dozen or so where we live inconveniences nobody to a significant degree. It's safer and easier than riding in pairs, and arguably delays people less because they've only got to get past once rather than six times.

Do please go and try riding a bike - you'll understand what we're saying, and probably be fitter and hopefully less stressed.

In reply to MG:

No it's not racing but riding efficiently. When you ride in a group there's a whole lot of aerodynamic efficiencies going on. Simplistically you can say that the front riders are putting in 100% effort, the next row back maybe 70%, third row 50%, fourth row 35%. However the fact that the second, third and fourth rows exist actually cause the front riders to be more efficient as well.

As a result a tight group of riders actually rides at a faster pace than one or two riders for the same effort. Thus the group can get out of your way quicker than if they were in ones and twos.

Tim, I don't know if it is still the case but as I believe you are in agriculture you might know. It used to be that a farmer could block the road (for want of a better term) for up to twenty minutes to load/offload or move animals. Is that still the case? Most farmers these days seem to have Ifor Williams trailers so it might not be an issue!

ALC

In reply to andy:

I have., Quite a lot. Never really had a problem with cars or felt the need to ride in a peleton to go a fraction faster.

In reply to MG:

You should join a club then - find out what "a fraction faster" means when you're knackered after 40 miles into a headwind.

In reply to andy:

So an interesting question has to be can a driver set put in their car with a few mates and drive on each others bumpers because it's more efficient as long as they have a system that they believe would prevent accidents?

I'd say no and I struggle to see why cycling is different.


What makes you think, we don't ride bikes and that we're unfit and stressed?

In reply to a lakeland climber:



I'm not aware that there has ever been any special dispensation for moving livestock. I'd say it's as valid a use of the road as horse riding, cycling, walking etc and like all those activities it should be done with care and consideration.

In reply to timjones:


I think this is being missed. Its not 'us and them' I presume that because we are all on this forum at all we are all cyclists. Some choose to ride in packs and some don't is all.

In reply to andy:

OOI, what would happen if a child ran out in front of your group close enough to require maximum braking force not to hit them, or one of your cyclists at the front suffered mechanical failure and fell off, stopping near enough dead? Would the group pile into one another, or do you leave a sensible braking distance between you?

Genuine question, I have never ridden in a group in this way.

Neil

In reply to Neil Williams: If someone fell off then quite possibly there'd be a bit of a crash - never happened to us, although at the end of a closed road event in mallorca a few years ago in a group of maybe 70 or 80 there was a touch of wheels and quite a few came down - but that was tanking along at nearly 30mph on a straight closed road where you weren't expecting anything to happen. You get used to watching the wheel in front - bikes can actually stop pretty quickly if you throw everything on, and that's why shouts etc are so important. If a child ran out I'd be surprised if someone at the front wouldn't have spotted walkers or pedestrians and warned everyone to slow down anyway.

It's only like driving - in an area where you think there might be kids you don't give it full gas - for example we often set out along Skipton high street on a saturday morning - we literally bimble along there, as you would in a car. Animals like sheep, or worse dogs, are the most unpredictable as they can appear from nowhere.

And tim etc - the phrase was "fittER" and "LESS stressed" - it's relative, not absolute.

In reply to GrahamD:

Interesting question - so, to those who have expressed an opinion that groups of cyclists should either not be there at all or should get out of drivers' way - what cycling do you do? I'm talking weekly/monthly mileage, town or country, main road or country lanes - tim? MG?

If you've not ridden in a decently organised group it'd be hard to understand why it's not as simple as "just pull in or split into pairs" - if it was I can assure we'd do it!

I do wonder if some drivers think that cyclists deliberately try to hold them up - I bloody hate having a car behind me as I'm a decent sort of chap who was brought up to consider other people, but if I think the safest thing to do is to keep him or her there for a couple of hundred yards then as it's my arse vs 20 seconds delay then I reserve my right to keep them there for a bit.

In reply to andy: I don't think I expressed either opinion. .. Anyway cycle commuting for maybe five years and some touring. Pack cycling sounds grim to me but each to their own. However it is clearly about going faster. Claiming it is about safety or for cars convenience is disingenuous so I think a bit of consideration is due. My record is following a pack five miles in the Lakes who were all seemingly oblivious to the car behind them as they wove in and out to get to the front actively blocking any attempt to overtake. This sort of thing is not on and gives cyclists a bad name.

In reply to MG: Of course it's about going faster (and further), as well as being sociable and fun - but it's also safer, particularly at night, and if you can't see how passing a group in one go rather than six groups of two on narrow roads then you've never driven in the Dales.

But where on earth did you manage to follow a group in the lakes for five miles? I'm not doubting it, but are you sure you're not that old gimmer who drove into the Tour of Britain in Ambleside a few years ago?

In reply to andy: Whatever the road north of Grassmere is. Its windy and quite busy so limited overtaking possible. Then when I got past, as above, they reovertook at a roundabout! About 20 three abreast clearly racing.

In reply to MG:

Not being antagonistic here but "wove in and out" of what?

A group that is working together take turns at the front as that's where most effort is expended. If you don't know what you are looking for/at it can appear a bit of a melee.

Of course the group you were following may have been numpties! Without video evidence it's hard to tell.

ALC

In reply to MG:

Your post is just full of sheer ignorance. If pack cycling was actually grim or dangerous there wouldn't be thousands of club riders out all over the country every sunday morning. It is not about just about going faster it is about conserving energy and being able to go further for less effort. Rarely do groups actually give it 'full gas' as this normally just splits the group up. It is safer in a group if only for the sheer presence and it is normally easier for a car to overtake ten cyclists in a tight group than it is to pull in and out of 5 seperate pairs. I would never deny there are some bad cyclists but just because one group held you up shouldn't give every cyclist a 'bad name'. Do you think badly of every motorist when you see a driver using a mobile or tailgating? I doubt if you do so why do it with cyclists.

In reply to MG:

That's Dunmail Raise - it's three lanes wide going up, then about three miles of narrow windy stuff past Thirlmere, then a dual carriageway past Castle Rock - no roundabouts til beyond Keswick (assuming you were going north), so (whilst clearly frustrating for you) it was honestly nowhere near five miles (and certainly not if they caught you up at Keswick). But it's a helpful example - if our club was riding along that bit of road by Thirlmere we'd definitely line out in single file, as it's two lanes wide and plenty wide enough for a car to overtake all of us safely pretty much anywhere. We'll only stay bunched up (and only ever 2 up) if it's unsafe to overtake without the risk of having to pull in.

We're honestly quite nice folk - I get irritated by the occasional "militant" group, but they are (in my experience) very, very rare.

In reply to MG:

Again - ignorance. Taking turns is not racing!

In reply to a lakeland climber: Well moving erratically left and right. This help going faster but is hardly giving much consideration to other road users particularly when thry are trying to get by.

In reply to andy: Going south. Definitely a small roundabout.

In reply to yesbutnobutyesbut: Cobblers. The intention is to go faster.

In reply to yesbutnobutyesbut: Did you miss the 'to me' bit. If cycling in the country I don't want to be paying attention to nothing but the wheel of someone in front.

In reply to MG:

You really don't know what you are talking about. You've said you haven't ridden in a group so I'm at a loss to know how you know so much about it

In reply to andy: Possibly south of Grassmere in fact.

In reply to yesbutnobutyesbut: Its hardly a secret!

In reply to MG: the road through Rydal etc is quite bendy to be fair (and wouldn't be a great place to overtake anyone tbh) and there's a mini-roundabout in ambleside by the Rule but honestly it's no more than a couple of miles - i know only too well how frustrating it is to be held up along there, as i suspect i've ridden faster along there on a bike than half the tourists drive. Doesn't excuse people riding like that - there are places i'd line out along there (in fact i think there's a cycle lane somewhere) like past White Moss car park.

In reply to andy:

Interesting. Don't think I would want to do that, as I'm a real stickler for correct thinking/braking distances when driving. But as it'll only be people in the group who get injured that is I guess up to them.

That said, cycling on your own on a canal towpath can also be hazardous if you misjudge a slight kink in the towpath onto an aqueduct and clip it with your handlebar (and hand) at a reasonable speed (but somehow managing to stay on!). The result of that for me on Saturday was a broken little finger and a ride in an ambulance after going into bad shock resulting in almost passing out and (their words) dangerously low blood pressure...

Neil

In reply to Neil Williams:

I guess that's one way of looking at it, but it relies on the entire group being capable making a split second decision to injure one of their own group rather than veering into oncoming traffic, onto the pavement etc.

In reply to andy:


I can only answer personally.

Most of my riding is on my own or occasionally with a mate. Mostly on B roads or minor roads. When I've cycled with a group, its been purely a social outing and people tend to pair up and go their own pace.

I've only ever done two 'organised' rides and both times it struck me about a 'pack' mentality prevailed - whereas one cyclist is very self concious of antisocial riding a large group can easily switch into a group mentality with no individual responsibility.

In reply to timjones:


I am polite to those it is worth being polite to. Since you show no interest in actually understanding others positions though I really cant be bothered with being so with you.


You keep dribbling about how it is safer if it is easier to pass.
So care to explain the discrepancy? Why does it apply in one case and not the other?


Where did I say that? You seem to want to stop people riding as groups (note spacing people out in pairs over several miles isnt the same thing).
Whilst it wouldnt affect me since I dont ride that way it would be stopping people doing the activity they wish on spurious grounds.


With your repeated statements about if it is easier to pass then it is safer.


By such lengths you mean casually scrolling through a thread and quoting you back? Yeah thats difficult.


You may note I have already stated that getting statistical evidence would be tricky, although could be done by looking at accident rates with or outside a group. You may have ignored this though since it was whilst asking you for evidence for your claims.

At least Bruce could be amusing whilst ranting about cyclist.

In reply to dissonance:



Aha. I love questions with easy answers

Because there is a clear difference between passing a cyclist that is riding well out into the road and passing a longer group of cyclists. You need to give both enough space but passing a longer group requires a longer distance.

There's also a significant difference between having to anticipate the actions of a small number of cyclists and having to anticipate the actions of a larger group.



I'm still gobsmacked that anyone thinks that anyone thinks that making safe passing more difficult does anything to increase safety levels. However if that is your opinion I'm happy to respect your right to hold that view. How about you show the good manners to respect my right to hold a differing opinion without repeatedly posting wildly inaccurate digs at my motives?



I was thinking of repeated attempts to run my opinions down with cheap digs rather than politely agreeing that we disagree.


If you can't be arsed to seek out evidence for your opinions, it seems unreasonable to demand that others provide evidence for theirs!

In reply to timjones:


You are failing to address the point. Which is you consistently claim it is safer if it is easier to pass. Plenty of people have given reasons why it isnt for a group and I am just listing a very simple and straight forward other scenario where it isnt.



You mean a group is far more predictable since they cant do the "feck that was the junction" as easily as a cyclist on their own?


Its not just mine but pretty much anyone who has any experience of actual riding as a group that your idea of safe passing, isnt. I know I sacrifice some safety by not riding as a group but thats a preference of mine.
That you are gobsmacked after plenty of people have explained in detail why is somewhat baffling.


Perhaps when you show any evidence I will however when the majority of your comments reference convenience for the drivers I wont bother.


I give up. Lets see
I ask for evidence
Ask for it again
You then ask
I note that you hadnt bother providing any yourself and that I had actually stated the issues gathering it

Then suddenly its me not being arsed. You wonder why I dont treat your comments with any respect. Thats in in a nutshell.
Anyway you win, I really cant be bothered wasting any more time on your anti cycling rants.

In reply to dissonance:

To throw something completely bizarre in to the mix, I saw one of these - http://www.2cancycle.co.uk/ - this afternoon going very slowly up a long hill near us. How would you (any respondents on this thread) approach that with a view to overtaking?

ALC

In reply to a lakeland climber:


Same as any other rider, eg pass giving plenty of space. Surprised it was very slow though, I thought recumbents tended to be faster, hence why they are banned from comps.
I would be paranoid about the visibility if I was riding one though.

In reply to dissonance:

Looks heavy, solidly engineered, I suspect it is quite slow despite the aerodynamic advantages.

In reply to dissonance:

They'd been going uphill for about a mile when I saw them

ALC

In reply to Dave Reeve:

Slower up hills but a lit faster on the flat and Dow hill for same effort

In reply to timjones: Tim, you know how sports climbers on here regularly cry 'just don't clip the bolts' when having bolting/not bolting arguments. This thread strikes me as much the same. You appear to be making broad statements about something that you clearly know very little about and, much like trad climbing perhaps, until you've seen it from the other side,it's impossible to understand. You have no idea what planning a group has out into deciding where/when/how to ride so they cause minimal disruption to others (and I guarantee these things are usually discussed in far more detail than you may anticipate), and I'm afraid that until you've ridden in a group you won't understand the differences between riding in a group and riding on your own/in pairs. Just don't clip the bolts - it's still climbing.

In reply to rmt:
... so they cause minimal disruption to others (and I guarantee these things are usually discussed in far more detail than you may anticipate),

Minimising disruption at least aknowledges that there is disruption.


That's from the group cyclists' perspective, not the car driver's. From the car drivers' point of view the difference is absolutely obvious.

In reply to GrahamD:

Well, as a car driver perhaps you'd better enlighten me as I've never had a problem waiting for, then passing either a single cyclist or a group when it was safe for both cyclist(s) and me to do so.

ALC

In reply to a lakeland climber:

As a cyclist and car driver, just about any Sunday in the Peak I'll have problems with cyclist groups. As i say, with some groups there seems to be 'pack mentality' set in where indiidual riders don't seem to take responsibility for the the behaviousr of the group. Hence the group behaves very differently in terms of consideration to other road users.

In reply to Dave Reeve:

I just wonder when will folk realise that cycling and cyclists are part of the solution (a bloody big part), not part of the problem.

In reply to gd303uk:

I just treat them as I would any other vehicle, I don't peep at slow moving vehicles, so I don't peep at cyclists either.

I just wait for a safe place and overtake as normal like a tractor or the like.

Sometimes I find it possible to surge ahead of the pack so as to gain sight of clear roads ahead (beyond what could be seen behind --i.p., by the overtaking, held-up driver--, and then can wave the motorvehicle to come up past the pack and me (being out in the passing lane in doing this). Usually, drivers wave their thanks for the consideration (and it's as much just the note of consideration as real time savings that matters). Twisty roads frustrate such an effort, whereas small rises are often good places for it.

*kN*

In reply to VisionSet:


As I said earlier, I presume everyone on this forum is a cyclist already. What we are talking about are packs of cyclists.