UKC

I'm a cyclist (well, haven't cycled much in the last six months as I got knocked off when commuting - not my fault at all; they didn't see me), and also drive a car.
I've been looking at the cycling-two-abreast issue, and there's a couple of things I don't understand.
And especially since the view of this seems to polarise, and for some people become one of principle rather than practicality.
It seems that it's not illegal to cycle two abreast - OK, that's easy to understand.
The argument then seems to be that it's better for cyclists to cycle two abreast, and here there seem to be two arguments:

a) if there is a large group of cyclists, then if they cycle two abreast the peleton becomes shorter, and this makes it easier for cars to overtake - it's better for everyone.

This I completely get. But, of course, we're talking here about pelotons, not pairs of cyclists, or two or three.

b) it is safer even if there are just two or three cyclists.
This I find harder to understand. The arguments variously seem to be:
- When overtaking a cyclist you should give lots of space
- When overtaking cyclist you will therefore be entirely on the other side of the road anyway, so there is room for cyclists to be two abreast
- There is a shorter line of cyclists to overtake

The first point under b) I completely get, but the latter two leave me baffled.
There are roads near me that are of a width such that you could overtake one cyclist with plenty of space while staying on your side of the road, which is just as well as oncoming traffic is quit frequent - the alternatives of causing a bad-tempered line of motorists behind, or going out into the oncoming lane are not conducive to safety.
But some cyclists go two abreast in pairs.
For the motorist, this is a game-changer - instead of safely and easily overtaking, you have to slow down, wait for a gap in oncoming traffic, pull right out into the other lane (if you want to give them space) and then floor it to get past before an oncoming car comes along.
Now sure, the line of cyclists is one cycle shorter, but this is nothing compared to the extra challenge involved.

The other thing that baffles me is a wide road near me with cycle lanes each side of the road. Well, the cycle lane isn't as wide as a car, though is pretty wide, so are you supposed to go right over into the oncoming lane or do what most cars do, and simply overtake in the car lane while the cyclists stay are in the cycle lane (unless they themselves are overtaking). The latter seems to make sense - but then some go two abreast here, two, and in pairs not peletons.

To my mind the answer to all this is pretty obvious. Peletons should go two abreast, and cyclists in pairs or threes should probably go single file most of the time, though cycling defensively and out from the kerb - unless there's some reason not to.

In light of that, I find the Chris Boardman video puzzling ( http://www.cyclingweekly.co.uk/news/latest-news/chris-boardman-explains-why... ). It doesn't seem to distinguish between large and small groups of cyclists, or between something being legal and something being wise, or take into account different road widths. I mean it does implicitly - we see empty standard-sized roads with a peleton, but this isn't presented as one of many situations.

Or have I missed something? I don't want to start a polarised row of the kind that seem to dominate on this topic. I'm just puzzled...

In reply to Lightweight:

In a group of two riding two abreast still reduces time overtaking vehicles spend in the opposite carriageway.

If there is space to overtake a single cyclist without going into the opposite carriageway then you should cycle single file.

Of course, what people should do and what people actually do aren't ever the same thing.

In reply to Lightweight:

A topic I feel quite passionately about.

Riding side by side when in pairs is safer, purely because it makes drivers think before committing to an overtake. If you are single file then they try to push past and then push back in.

I ride road bike, motorbikes and drive a car.

I have never been held up by a cyclist for more than say 30 seconds? Even still when that has happened the cyclist has always tried to facilitate me by helping me to get passed.

Truth is people who beep their horn and gesticulate to cyclist firstly need to chill out. Is life really important to arrive 30 seconds late? If so why not set off with time to actually arrive on time. Is a life worth risking a poor overtake. The sooner we embrace cycling the world will be a better place. Do they get annoyed by tractors?

With a decent wind behind me I can maintain 25mph plus on a dual carriageway (benefit of living on the coast) there is plenty of room for you to get past. I don't need to shit myself as you blow your horn at me as you pass.

Im sure the car lovers will be along soon!

In reply to Lightweight:

Hasn't this been done to death a million times on here and a dozen other web sites. You may as well be discussing planes on treadmills.

In reply to BenedictIEP:

Completely agree with the second of your sentences. The first one, I'm not so sure.
If you want to give, say, 3 feet space between you and the cyclist you have to go further into the other side of the road if they're two abreast, and my instinct is that this actually takes more time and is harder... but I guess it would depend on the situation.
But that's quibbling really...
What you say makes much sense though. I agree with your last bit, too!
Though the thing that puzzles me isn't so much your last point, but the way some people instead of saying "well obviously, riding two abreast when it's not appropriate isn't helpful" instead say "it's legal, therefore you can do it if you want" or say it's a question of equality. And to be clear, I'm a cyclist and a driver and don't see how my rights change, but do think each form of transport brings with it different considerations.
Out of interest, what did you make of the Boardman video - did you think it oversimplified things?

In reply to Jimbo MSider:

I think hooting horns at cyclists is very poor indeed - unless of course they haven't seen you, or they're being dangerous. I've had it out with motorists over this...

I think your point about most cyclists allowing cars past is right - nearly all do. I'm probably allowing my observations of a few pairs cycling two abreast on particular roads because they can, even though it would be much easier for all if they didn't because there's enough room for safe same-side overtaking, skew my thinking a bit.

Though I wonder if the way the issue is presented encourages this a little - it sometimes comes across as point-making. Dunno.

In reply to Lightweight:
I think the boardman video is a brilliant means to an end. While it doesn't tell the whole story I have in the past shown it to friends who don't cycle to demonstrate the concepts covered from a new perspective (that of the cyclist). My girlfriend passed it on to her driving instructor who now makes all his pupils watch it.

The important thing to remember is that once you've decided to enter the opposite carriageway. It doesn't matter if you've gone 6" in and clip a car or gone fully in and crashed head on, you've still crashed. So cycling two abreast doesn't actually give drivers less space once the drive has to cross to the opposite side of the road.

Also. Preventing motorists to pass can be necessary at times. Ie to prevent them from cutting in (and clipping you in the process!) to avoid oncoming traffic, By preventing them from attempting an unsafe overtake in the first place.

In reply to Lightweight:

I solve the problem by being a miserable tw*t and always cycling on my own.

In reply to Jimbo MSider:

Actually I've quite often been in a bus/car held up for well over 30 seconds by cyclists, especially going uphill on a narrow, bendy, country road. That's perfectly acceptable and unavoidable.
I would have thought there was often more risk to to the outer of two cyclists especially since in the real world there will always be a few bad and impatient drivers.

In reply to Lightweight:

Perhaps if you were more concerned about safety and less about being held up; then you'd understand. Riding single file a car overtakes trying not to cross the line like you've just described. The people in the cars behind can't see the single file cyclists as their view is blocked by the car at the front. The car in front doesn't make an obvious move to cross the line to overtake. The cars behind make even less of an overtaking manuever because they didn't realise the car in front was overtaking. Move further back down the line of cars and the overtakes get closer and closer and closer. Many will be familiar with the third car in an overtake almost brushing your elbow. Riding two abreast forces an obvious overtake by the lead car and following cars follow the example. Everyone in the line of cars are aware they need to overtake slower moving traffic and it forces them to do it at an appropriate point and speed and not just in the most convenient way for them whilst seriously neglecting the more vulnerable road users safety.

In reply to Lightweight:
I ride about a third of the time on my own, a third with one mate and a third with the club. I reckon when I'm in a group of 8-12 with the club I get far less close passes, and probably most when there's two of us. We should probably ride two abreast more than we do round here (Dales) as riding single file encourages cars to pass, on narrow bendy roads. So frequently a car pulls out to pass when they can't see (because we're in single file so they can get through, right?) then realises they can't and pull in sharply meaning the front rider nearly gets clipped.

But if we ride two up on these roads we're being inconsiderate - it's a tricky one. We don't like to feel we're inconveniencing people, but we don't like to be out in danger.

In reply to Lightweight:

Nothing in my life is ever that important that i cant wait 30-180 seconds for a safe place to pass cyclists.

In reply to Lightweight:

Your argument is that a peleton should ride 2 abreast on narrow twisty country roads, and single file whilst riding in pairs on wide roads.

It surely must be easier to pass pair of cyclists two abreast on a wide road than a peleton on a narrow road?

I know, you feel as if you can overtake safely one cyclist without going over onto the other side of the road. Although probably not a horse, a tractor, a stopped taxi, a lorry needing to swing onto the other side of the road to make a turn.

On a busy road, you're pretty much guaranteed to catch up with traffic even if you are held up for a short while. If you're looking far ahead, adjusting your speed and judging oncoming traffic properly you should be able to overtake cyclists with ease.

In reply to Lightweight:

If you have a passenger in your car, do you make them sit behind you or allow them to sit next to you?

Besides which, most cars are three abreast, and two rows, which is just plain selfish when there's only one person inside.

And drivers have the nerve to main about a solitary cyclist....



The answer to your question is so that you can talk. The purpose of a ride is not to minimise the impact of your presence on other road users - this is a principle well understood by every middle lane hogger on the motorway.

In reply to nniff:

Not many roads that I know of actually are wide enough to allow safe overtaking of a cyclist correctly spaced and yet not cross any line.
Think. Lets say a metre out then at least a metre and a half gap. Chuck in handlebar width. 3 metres plus the car. That's over the line of the roads I know.
2 abreast is safer for the cyclist.
That's the main priority. Its safer for on coming traffic, the 2nd priority as, as drivers don't push through. Their perceived delay is irrelevant at best.

In reply to mattsccm:

The only safety issue that concerns with riding 2 abreast, is that some dick could misjudge their speed and knock the outside cyclist off in either impatience or misjudgement. Balls of steel to ride 2 abreast in my opinion.

In reply to Dave the Rave:

Your opinion is just that

In reply to Lightweight:

It's kinda ironic that cars, a two abreast mode of transport, are giving anyone else a hard time about not being single file.

is the problem that cyclists take up too much room or that cars do?

In reply to Dave the Rave:


tbf - that's happened to me single file too - people who drive cars are notiously shit at knowing how wide they are - as my ripped thigh and assos bibs will atest. (luckily the car coming the opposite direction was an ambulance who patched me up)

In reply to Lightweight:

It always makes me feel sad when such debates become so polarised. After all, so many cyclists are also drivers and so many drivers are also cyclists. It doesn't need to be a question of either/or.

Cyclists used to get right up my nose, but then I moved to South Cheshire to an area that has dramatically grown in popularity for cyclists and especially cycling clubs - Sundays in particular.

Driving to or from Chester any given Sunday means encountering cyclists and groups very frequently and it can turn a journey of normally 25 mins into one closer to 40. Encountering this very frequently can either drive you up the wall, or can challenge the way you look at things and the way you choose to deal with it. Personally I have chosen to bear the extra time taken on my journey with good grace and calmness with due consideration for the safety of everyone using the road.

That's not to say that there is a lack of idiot cyclists out there, and my experience seems to point to belligerent club cyclists who are "legally entitled to cycle like this...". Sadly I have seen a catalogue of instances where club cyclists appear to have chosen to deliberately obstruct drivers as a way of very visually exercising their rights. (I have also see some cyclists groups riding three abreast and taking up 2/3 of the road, seemingly enjoying causing tailbacks of drivers). Similarly I have seen drivers getting impatient and passing dangerously. On one occasion I saw the driver ahead weaving around in an exaggerated manner as he tried to get past a cyclist who was doing nothing wrong. The driver passed very close, blasting his horn and then pulled over to shout at the cyclist. Having seen it all I also pulled over and told the other driver that he was the one at fault and let the cyclist know that he was blameless and that if he needed help with Mr Road Rahe then he would get it.

On the whole I have found that the vast majority of cyclists are fine - my perception is no doubt aided by my own attitude which has been to give cyclists more time and more space - funnily enough I've not had any issues for a long time.

Whether legally entitled or not, there are times whether driver or cyclist, when it is simply better to take the most sensible approach. That could mean waiting for a better place to overtake or could mean giving cars a better opportunity to pass. Either way cyclists just want to enjoy their sport and drivers just want to get to where they are going - nobody wants to have to deal with "the other side" being inconsiderate, reckless, aggressive or dangerous, and even more, nobody wants to get hurt.

Finally, I'm more of a runner than anything - I run 4-5 times per week, often out on the road. Could I just ask drivers to watch out for ALL other road users, (horses, runners, cyclists, pedestrians) and give them the space they deserve - I've had far too many near misses with cars. Could I also ask cyclists to give me the space that they want themselves as I'm NEVER given this luxury! Oh, and stop shouting "encouragement" at me as you pass - I don't need it!

Be safe all, and enjoy your sport!

In reply to Lightweight:
We were riding 2 abreast in one of two lanes going in our direction. One driver held back behind us beeping his horn until I waved him round us.
He seemed to object to moving 3.5m right into an empty lane rather than 2.5 m right into the empty lane.

There wasn't any other traffic but he somehow objected to moving into an empty lane!

In reply to Lightweight:

Its all about what is appropriate for the road, isn't it ? if two abreast is reduceing overtaking opportunities then its selfish and isn't going to lead to a pleasent experience for anyone.

Nice wide road then why not ? Having said that I hate riding on the outside in traffic. Just feels unnaturally exposed.

In reply to Lightweight:

Rule 66 of the Highway code is clear, 'ride single file on narrow or busy roads and when riding round bends.'
If you have an accident and you are contravening this, you are much more likely to lose out on compensation from the car driver, and more importantly, you are also much more likely to have an accident.

In reply to Jim 1003:


evidence please.

In reply to Lightweight:

I'm becoming more and more of the opinion that cyclist don't ride two abreast, or in the primary position when cycling alone, anything like enough.

In reply to KevinD:


The people who wrote the Highway code put it in there after they collected the evidence, the same as everything that's in there. Do you think they put it in there so more people would have accidents or less people wold have them?

In reply to Jim 1003:


So, you dont have any evidence then. Cheers for clearing that up.

In reply to The New NickB:

You're absolutely right Nick. If more of the less experienced cycle commuters adopted primary position, there would be fewer disastrous accidents.

In reply to lummox:


It does make me wince when some people are riding on the wet leaves and nice slippery drainage grates coming out just far enough to pass a car and get doored before dropping back in.

In reply to KevinD:


^ You didn't answer that point...has the advice to cycle single file in the Highway code rule 66 been put in to ensure cyclists are safer or did the writers put it in to make them less safe.

In reply to Jim 1003:



You conveniently left off the word 'Should'. It's advisory not compulsory and is not always the best thing to do. Riding single file on narrow roads can sometimes lead to close passing by cars that should be hanging back until it's safe, riding primary or two abreast is actually far safer in these conditions.

In reply to Jim 1003:


I didnt need to. You made a claim without evidence. So feel free to back it up.
Given that, as yesbutnobutyesbut points out that it is a should, doesnt indicate that the writers thought it was an essential safety issue.

In reply to yesbutnobutyesbut:


^That's absolute rubbish, and that's why the Highway code says you should cycle in single file on narrow roads. What evidence do you have that the Highway code is wrong?

In reply to Jim 1003:

You really don't know what you are talking about. Years of cycling thousands of miles on country lanes is my 'evidence'.

In reply to Jim 1003:

Codes of practice like the highway code make careful use of defined terms. 'Should' and 'Must' mean different things.

In reply to yesbutnobutyesbut:


So no evidence then, but you feel qualified to give advice contrary to the Highway code which advises in Rule 66, cycle in single file on narrow or busy roads. Bit silly and opinionated to advise people the Highway code is wrong....

In reply to Jim 1003:

You'll find that almost every cycling club in the country that goes from two abreast to single and vice versa dependent on traffic and road conditions will single out only when it is safe to do so and not just because the road narrows. The Highway code states should rather than must as it is not absolutely clear cut . I think years of experience does count as evidence as does the fact that nearly all regular cyclists will do exactly the same. Your experience of cycling on country lanes is obviously minimal and as said previously you really don't know what you are talking about.

In reply to Lightweight:

It all depends on the conditions- i.e. width of road, bends in the road, amount of traffic, and your speed relative to the traffic.

A bit of consideration from all parties goes a long way, and if riding in a small group it may be necessary to single out from time to time to allow cars to pass on narrow sections (and dare I say it, on occasion to pull in and let them pass if there is no alternative coming up in the near future).

Speed is important, as if you're cycling down hill at 25-30mph, you're really not holding up motorists that much and also it is going to take them much longer to pass you. In these situations, going 2 abreast might be better and cyclists should not hesitate to use the primary position if required ( I have no qualms in moving over towards the white line if traffic is approaching from behind when I know it's not safe for them to pass me) .

So, whilst it is entirely within the law to cycle 2 abreast, it requires constant judgement and assessment of the road conditions as they approach; something which the self righteous type of cyclist does not do.

In reply to Jim 1003:


I can tell you from c4-5000 miles cycling a year, most on narrow roads that the highway code is often wrong. Read my post further up - I get close passed most often when riding in a pair on narrow roads when in single file, because drivers see that as an invitation to pass. So yes, on narrow, bendy roads I'm going to try to ride two up, or at least in primary, more often, because it's safer.

In reply to andy:

It's irrelevant how often or how much you cycle, it doesn't make you right or qualified to give advice. Some of the worst cyclists or drivers may cycle or drive a lot. The highway code has a legal standing, and if you contravene it you are less likely to receive appropriate compensation should you be knocked off your bicycle, you will also be more likely to be found to have some contributory negligence, or, indeed, you may be found responsible for any ensuing accident.
I know that because I make those findings every day.
Apart from that, you are also more likely to be knocked off and injured or killed.

In reply to Jim 1003:
the distance I (and others) cycle is completely relevant - it means I have significant experience of when drivers overake dangerously, and better qualified than people who don't ride on those roads to comment. If I sit 2 up on a narrow road and someone can't overtake then I'm safer than if they try to squeeze past. If someone tries to squeeze past then they're at fault, not me for riding defensively.

As someone else said - you have no idea what you're talking about - and "you're more likely to be knocked off and injured or killed"? Evidence? What proportion of cyclists being hit by vehicles involves cyclists riding two abreast? I suspect you'll find the answer is miniscule. Don't just make shit up - I've told you my experience from thousands of miles of riding. If you're going to make statements like that them back it up with some facts.

In reply to Jim 1003:




So you're more likely to be knocked off by a car that can't get past than by one that tries to squeeze past when there isn't enough room because you're riding 'single' as the road is narrow because that what the highway code recommends.

You really do post some drivel. I'll take cycling safety advice from an experienced cyclist over your b*llsh*t any day.

In reply to Jim 1003:



Are you one of those rich, snobby, interfering judges?

In reply to yesbutnobutyesbut:

Everyone seems to know better than the highway code and the researchers that compile it. Cyclists. Speeding motorists. Middle lane hogs. Makes you wonder why they bother.

In reply to GrahamD:

It's a bit like cycle lanes, made with the best intentions and supposedly to make cyclists safer but the real life reality is often very different.

In reply to yesbutnobutyesbut:

Without seeing the stats I wouldn't know. But I would say that two abreast makes us a lot more vulnerable to cars coming towards us, even if we hold up cars behind us to our satisfaction.


I don't think the people planning cycle lanes have much to do with compiling the highway code do they ?

In reply to andy:


^ More bollocks, your not qualified to give advice contrary to the Highway code. You could be the biggest dick that's ever ridden a bike. It's like saying that somebody who drives 100k miles a year is qualified to give advice about driving on that basis alone, the fact is they are not, because they could be a terrible driver.

The fact is, if you are knocked off riding two abreast contrary to the Highway code, wither you like it or not, then you would almost certainly have some sort of contributory negligence.

In reply to GrahamD:




No, but they are things that are supposed to make cycling safer - instead they seem to make cycling inconvenient (lots of stop start) and less safe (due to drivers not expecting to see cyclists on actual roads and mixing bikes with pedestrians)

In reply to yesbutnobutyesbut:

okay Mr VDiff.

In reply to Jim 1003:


You keep making this claim and you keep failing to back it up. Note that appealing to the highway code doesnt actually help since the writers thinking is unclear. That it was marked as a should not a must would indicate they dont think its a major safety issue though.

In reply to GrahamD:


I like the use of "our satisfaction". Shows an interesting bias there. As for more vulnerable to oncoming cars. You do realise a pair of cyclists wont generally take up much more space than someone in primary and certainly less than a car.

In reply to GrahamD:


The Highway Code gets updated doesn't it. The reason it gets updated is that best practice changes, the problem is that it can take a while for best practice to be accepted, especially when it comes to cycling.

In reply to The New NickB:

What exactly causes "best practice " to change?

In reply to Tom Valentine:


Research

In reply to KevinD:


The fact is the Highway code is absolutely clear you should cycle in single file on narrow or busy roads. The Highway code does think it's a safety issue as they have made it Rule 66. This means if this is contravened this will be part of the decision making process on liability for an accident.

In reply to The New NickB:

By whom?

In reply to Tom Valentine:


SUSTRANS, CTC, Department for Transport, Universities, EU amongst others.

In reply to Jim 1003:


Actually it isnt. There is a hint in the word should. It is worrying that you claim to be involved in accident investigation and yet dont understand the basics.
I got bored enough to have a look in Cyclecraft. Oddly enough it doesnt share your certainty.I cant help but feel that it carries a tad more weight that your wittering.
The primary reference to safety is for blind bends at which, of course, anyone who takes out a cyclist riding two abreast would be taking out a car.

In reply to Jim 1003:


True colours shown. Resorting to (attempted) insults says all we need to know about you really.

In reply to KevinD:

The difference with primary position is you still have somewhere to go ! On the outside you've got no escape. Certainly how I feel on the lanes I ride whereas my mate seems happier riding on the outside. I don't think cyclists en mass know what is best just what they feel

In reply to balmybaldwin:

On most cycle paths in the U.K. We agree.

In reply to The New NickB:


Of course, assuming it needs updating

In reply to KevinD:


That is not the cause of the distinction. "should" vs "must" refers to whether there is specific legislation relating to a particular rule. The rule about giving cyclists as much room as cars is also a "should" rule. Does that mean that close overtakes are not a major safety issue?

You should also note that failure to abide by "advisory" rules in the highway code can, in some cases, be used as evidence of an offence. They are more than just suggestions.

In reply to Jim 1003:


What the feck does "qualified" have to do with anything? I know when I've been passed too close - it's something to do with the car six inches from my elbow. And I can tell you that on narrow, bendy lanes, it happens much more when we're riding in single file because cars are tempted to come past and then realise something's coming the other way and pull in. I can tell you categorically that on this the advice in the highway code is wrong.


Bollox. Show some evidence or shut up. You stated with absolute certainty that riding two up makes you "much more likely to be knocked off". Evidence?

Thought not.

In reply to andy:

I think probably you should not give your ridiculous advice, I keep saying it and it's not sinking in, the Highway code rules have to be taken into consideration when considering liability in an accident. This means if you have contravened them and the other party has not, then you will almost certainly be liable. That's it, end of. It doesn't matter how many miles you have cycled, you still talk crap, bit like the white van men actually. They think they know best because they drive all day, (badly).

The reason Rule 66 is in the Highway code is to give advice on best practice to cyclists, where's your evidence to support what you believe is wrong with Rule 66. Your cycling experience is irrelevant, you only quote your opinion. That's why the Highway Code is there, so that people don't listen to misguided opinions.
My grandson is an experienced cyclist, he's only 8, but I wouldn't listen to him either. Although, I find him more sensible then you.

In reply to Jim 1003:
Still no evidence then, fella?

In that case I'll carry on doing what I (and thousands of other cyclists) know to be safer (which is controlling when cars can overtake us until I decide it's safe for them to do so). You crack on being pompous and patronising and blindly following "the rules" because someone's written then in a little book.

My evidence, as I have explained several times, is from hundreds of hours a year of riding a bike on country roads, where in single file we get passed too close be vehicles that if we were two up would have to wait. The safest thing to do there is to ride two up and make the vehicle wait til it's safe.

I mentioned this to a policeman (and cyclist) mate and his considered view is that you're "talking out of your arse" - if a driver caused an accident by overtaking where he couldn't see or the road wasn't wide enough to do so safely, then it'd be their fault no matter what a cyclist was doing - if there's not enough room or you can't see far enough ahead to safely make your manoeuvre stay back (that's rule 163, by the way).

In reply to andy: Fom the intro to the hwc

"Although failure to comply with the other rules of the Code will not, in itself, cause a person to be prosecuted, The Highway Code may be used in evidence in any court proceedings under the Traffic Acts (see The road user and the law) to establish liability. This includes rules which use advisory wording such as ‘should/should not’ or ‘do/do not’."

In reply to Jim 1003:

I think others posting on here have the same view as me - they're far less concerned with how liability on an accident would be judged and far more interested in doing what they know from their years of experience will make that accident much less likely, whether it's in the HC or not.

There's an awful lot of rubbish being posted in this thread.

The Highway Code is a set of guidelines. They're designed to make it easy for everyone to know what to do in different situations and therefore make it safer for all of us.

If a car is going to hit you from behind it'll hit you, regardless of where you are in the road. That's down to the driver.

Riding two abreast to stop cars overtaking and 'making it safer' is obstructing traffic. That's covered in the slow moving vehicles section. Pull over and let the car past.

If you're behind a cyclist or two cyclists rising abreast then wait until they find a safe place to pull over.

If you are cyclists riding two abreast and you're deliberately holding up cars by not pulling over when safe to do so, don't be suprised if you frustrate the motorists.

What makes it safe is if cyclists and car drivers read and UNDERSTAND ALL of the Highway Code.

In reply to andy:

Don't cars ever come round blind bends towards you on your country lanes ?

In reply to DancingOnRock



That isn't the issue. The issue is cars trying to overtake when there isn't enough room and squeezing you into the side of the road. There is also no where for them to go if a car comes the other way at the same time. The reaction of most of us when driving is to steer left if we see a car coming towards us on a narrow road, if there is a cyclist in the space on the left it's the cyclist that's going to get hit.

In reply to DancingOnRock:

When you're cycling you are sometimes in a position where if you adopt a very defensive position in the gutter, impatient car drivers will see that the available road width is 2" bigger than their car's width and overtake you. In those situations it's better to adopt a more central position and take the decision out of their hands. I learnt this when I was almost clipped crossing a traffic-light-controlled bridge barely wide enough for one car when my road positioning left *just* enough room. If they had hit me I would in all likelihood have ended up in the river several meters below.

BTW, I always wave an acknowledgement if a car has been held up by me for more than a few seconds. It helps.

In reply to GrahamD:


I don't know about you, but I don't fix my cycling position for the whole length of a road, I try and adopt the safest position at any one time.

In reply to The New NickB:


You have less freedom to do that when cycling two abreast, is all. So the justification of riding two abreast for some people is that by stopping a car overtaking you are safer because when an oncoming car arrives, the would bo overtaker won't push you into the hedge. Which misses the very obvious problem that the person on the ouside is riding head on into another car.

So the safest position is often not two abreast.

In reply to GrahamD:


Not if you are even slightly competent.


It also often is.

In reply to The New NickB:


Nothing to do with competence and everything to do with room to manouvre. Its why overlapping wheels are a no no in group rides.

In reply to GrahamD:

You are confusing two different things. Riding two abreast and half wheeling are not the same.

In reply to The New NickB:

They are not the same thing except for the fact that they both restrict a cyclist's options for manouvering.

In reply to Lightweight:

Perhaps if large groups of cyclists are going to cycle two abreast and expect cars to over take them like they do large lorries then should adopt the tractor rule where the must stop in laybys to allow overtaking!

In reply to andy:




Irrespective of liability, you can't control what car drivers or HGV drivers do, if one hits you because you are riding two abreast there is a good chance the other driver may well have missed you if you were in single file. Not really rocket science. Tell me how you control a car driver coming round a bend very fast behind you, your 2 abreast and there's an HGV coming the other way. The last fatal accident I dealt with involving a cyclist involved that scenario, the cyclist would not have been hit had he been in single file. This is exactly why it's stupid to ride 2 abreast on narrow or busy roads, or near a bend. Liability aside the cyclist was still dead, didn't really matter to them who was right or wrong. Anyway hopefully you'll grow up soon, before you get swiped by a car or lorry.
I have dealt with hundreds of accidents personally, I can tell you that scenario is one of the commonest involving cyclists. Not a thing you can do to control the other drivers, but you can make sure your in a safer position by being in single file on narrow or busy roads or near a bend. Your dreaming if you think you can control traffic, half the drivers that overtake you will be on their phone, a wise man keeps out of harms way on the roads.

In reply to CurlyStevo:

snore bore

In reply to Jim 1003:

Total rubbish. Every experienced cyclist knows that riding two abreast or in primary position forces motorists to overtake properly when it is safe to do so. Whilst riding single on a narrow road will often lead to squeeze passes. There is a lot that a cyclist can do to influence drivers behaviour.


Telling people to grow up doesn't really help your case . And a cyclist is far more likely to get swiped by a car or lorry if they let them try a close overtake.


So your experience counts but a cyclists opinion who rides thousands of miles and has far more experience of being overtaken whilst on a bike doesn't! And half of motorists are on thier phone, really.

You should go and ride a bike. You'd stop posting such ignorant nonsense pretty quickly.

In reply to yesbutnobutyesbut:

I agree with everything you say, bar the last line.

It's obvious from this thread that many cyclists are wrongly under the impression that they are safer Being bullied by traffic into the gutter.

In reply to Lightweight:

I live in the sticks in a network of lanes which is much beloved of cyclists. As a motorist, I strive at all times to give them space and only overtake when safe to do so. Sometimes this means trailing them for miles and that is a pain at time but c'est la vie and one of the prices I pay for living in the countryside.

The two cyclist behaviours which do concern me are as follows:

1. They will often wave me to oevrtake them when I know, being familiar with the roads, that it isn't safe to do so. if they do this and get it wrong, they are inviting an accident which may well involve themselves.

2. They will ride two abreast in a large peleton at high speed around blind bends and appear to be less able to stop than a car would. Presumably because the entire peleton would run into itself if the leaders came to an abrupt stop. I often have to come to a complete stop and throw my car to one side to avoid a mass of cyclists whilst they are unable to do so. This happens with depressing regularity. It's bad enough when someone in the comparative safety of a car drives like an arse around blind corners but you would think cyclists would know better. Being in single file would almost certainly be safer, as well as going at a speed they can actually stop if needs be,

I say this from the perspective of wanting cyclists to be able to enjoy doing what they do safely. Strangely, the local horseriders are much more careful and, oh yes, polite.

In reply to The New NickB:

There is quite a lot of difference between riding two (or more) abreast, riding single file and cowering in the gutter. Two-abreast at times makes sense for safety reasons. Two abreast to chat to your mates, or to form peleton to go faster, while being utterly indifferent to other traffic as is quite common, doesn't.

In reply to MG:

I'm talking about safety, repeating my first contribution to this thread. In terms of safety, it seems to me, as someone who spends more time behind the wheel than I do riding, cyclists do not ride two abreast or primary enough.

In reply to Jim 1003:

Exactly.

But again it's a matter of making decisions based on changing scenarios.

You make one discission because it's safer in one way and it makes it more dangerous in another situation.

A lot of it is catch 22, it's why they call them accidents.

Picking a default position is never a good idea.

In reply to The New NickB:


Or alternatively you can ride single file on a sensible line that discourages dangerous overtaking but, if it does happen either from overtaking car or oncoming car, gives you somewhere to manouvre.

In reply to yesbutnobutyesbut:




^ I ride a car and a bike every day, and also a motorcycle. I investigate accidents and reconstruct them for a living. My experience shows the Highway code rule 66 advising cyclists to cycle in single file on narrow or busy roads is good advice. I was having a look back through my files, 3 dead cyclists 2 abreast, haven't dealt with one in single file, but thats just my experience over 35 years. I dealt with a very horrific one where an HGV hit the outside cyclist of a group riding 3or 4 abreast on dual carriageway. The cyclist was inattentive and wobbled out into the next lane. Several other drivers then also hit the cyclist who was by this time rolling about in the second lane. The cyclist was decapitated and lost a leg and arm. Quite sad, also had he been in single file he would probably still be cycling around. As an advanced driver and expert court witness, in any form of driving, one always puts position first before speed etc. Surprised at the insistence of some cyclist to even want to cycle 2 abreast on narrow roads, its obviously very silly from my perspective and experience, and from those who write the Highway code. From your tone, and the other poster Andy, you do sound like one of these aggressive cyclists that cycles around with queues of HGV's and car drivers behind who can't get past. As much sense as tractor drivers with mile long queues behind.

In reply to Jim 1003:

Oh dear, another post full of rubbish. If you cycled every day, which I doubt as you would have mentioned it way before now as part of your expertise, you would be aware that a cyclist can influence traffic behind them and riding in primary or two a breast can often be the safest way to ride.

Your story about the cyclist being killed on a dual carraige way is terrible but what it has to do with thread topic I'm not quite sure as no one has said it's OK to ride '3 or 4 abreast' as you claim.

And telling other people about thier 'tone' and making up assumptions about how they cycle after you happily tell other posters to grow up and try and post digs about climbing grades is laughable.

If you are called on as an 'expert witness in any form of driving' then there really is no hope

In reply to yesbutnobutyesbut:
I cycle quite a lot (daily commute about 20 mins each way through a city), but I do think there is something wrong with long chains of cyclists cycling two a breast well under the speed limit as a leisure/fitness pursuit along country roads. I honestly think they should stop to let vehicles past if there is a long tail back as tractors have to.

I have less issue with smaller groups of cyclists cycling two a breast although its quite annoying if that stops you passing on a road that is wide enough for a cyclist, and two cars side by side (safely with fair distance) but isn't with two cyclists side by side. The issue here isn't the bike as such its the slower speed they are traveling at and deliberately making it harder to pass them by cycling side by side and / or in large groups. Can't the cyclists just cycle in much smaller sub groups and only stay side by side when they deem the road isn't wide enough for safe overtaking without using the other lane (or there isn't a car behind)?

Remember they might be cycling for fun but other road users have their own motivation for being on the road which may not be congruent with waiting being cyclists at 15-20 mph for low periods of time.

Of course it's perfectly legal to pass the cyclists and then drive 5 mph slower that the cyclists ideal speed to hit their strava time but I don't think they would like that either

In reply to CurlyStevo:

Any decent cycling club will always single out when it's safe to do so to let traffic past. One of the most common shouts on a club ride is 'car back' which basically means single out if needed when it's safe as there is a car being held up behind.

Cyclists are not a seperate species. Most cyclists are also car drivers and are not out to deliberately hold up people in thier cars.

At weekends many of these car journeys will be to get to leisure activities of one sort or another so roads being used for leisure activities can be extended well beyond cyclists. Like it or not roads are not for the exclusive use of car drivers and cyclists, horses, pedestrians where there is no pavement all have an equal right to use the road.

For hold ups caused by leisure activities any Bank holiday motorway surely puts your two minute delay caused by cyclists into perspective, do all those cars really have to go to the seaside?

In reply to yesbutnobutyesbut:
Are you deliberately sticking your head in the sand re Jim 1003? The guy cycles and is an expert in this matter and you dismiss both.

I'm afraid I agree with him riding two a breast in some situations is going to make it less safe. For example a road where a lorry coming around a blind corner will now not have room to pass or if you unnecessarily frustrate road users behind you. I think large groups of cyclists will also decrease safety for themselves and other road users in many circumstances.

Personally if I'm driving and their is a car wanting to pass, I'll happily slow down and or signal left, or pull in to a passing space on smaller roads. It increases safety for all. Unfortunately some of these groups of cyclists do the opposite IMO as they treat the road as a very slow race track and frustrate other road users not only in this regard but by taking more space than they need in many cases for no apparent reason and forming a long continuous line of cyclists that is hard to pass.

In reply to yesbutnobutyesbut:

As I said I cycle to work. I also mountain bike.

I've seen massive queues behind large groups of cyclists cycling 2 a breast for no reason than they feel like doing it. Its not just 2 mins and IMO its unnecessary.

In many cases the cycling groups are just too large and they are hogging the road and not letting other road users pass easily (as they have some time to beat etc) which is unreasonable and inconsiderate IMO.

In reply to CurlyStevo:

You seem to think you have more rights to the road than cyclists. Very few groups of cyclists set out to 'frustrate road users behind them' . If you have to wait a few minutes then so be it, if you get frustrated at that then that is your problem and you should allow an extra two minutes for your your journey. I drive as much as I cycle as do most cyclists and very rarely if ever am I held up for more than a couple of minutes by cyclists. Compared to the delays caused by other vehicles and the shear volume of cars on the road delays caused by cyclists are miniscule. You should find a reall problem to get so worked up about.

In reply to CurlyStevo:


He claims to be an expert, but when challenged on his expertise he just throws insults and whines like a petulant child. You would think expertise = access to evidence.

In reply to yesbutnobutyesbut:

I don't think there's much sense in cycling two abreast on narrow lanes in the proximity of bends - far too easy to get wiped-out by something coming the other way.

In reply to Yanis Nayu:

Narrow lanes are interesting. I think there is a strong argument for making yourself wide as a cyclist, be that by taking the primary position or two abreast to slow approaching vehicles, the cyclist(s) can then make room for the vehicle, but importantly passing at a slower speed. Obviously going into corners, the cyclist(s) keep well left going in to corners, stringing out if riding two abreast.

In reply to Lightweight:

There's been one tongue in cheek response to this from me. Time for a serious one now, because there is some real tripe on here now.

So, my 'credentials' About 170 miles a week average on a bike, of which about 100 or so on average is through London and its suburbs. The remainder is though the Surrey Hills and surrounding area. Active member of the large cycle club closest to Box Hill - and we get all the spray from people grumbling about the number of cyclists and so, as a matter of principle we try and be 'exemplary' given that we're all in club kit. I'm a 'ride leader' (don't really use that term except on formal BC stuff). I take out the groups that are the transition between people who want to be fast, but haven't really got much of a clue and turn them into people who step up to go racing and get really serious.

So, our principles -

Average paces - 16 mph - hilly for two and half hours. 18 mph on rolling to hilly. 19-20 on rolling. 22-23 flat.
Maximum group size is eight.
Name of the game is pace in safety, and trying to get the group to work efficiently as a group and delivering all safely back to the town line absolutely knackered.
Riding two abreast - if in a group of eight, usually, because in line astern someone will try and pass, cock it up and squeeze one of us into a ditch. Things string out on a climbs, so there are usually enough gaps for cars to pass. If we're causing a problem (single file or two abreast - on a single track/narrow road for example) we will pull in when the opportunity presents. Same holds for single file in a small group too.

If out in a group of four or so, then usually single file , taking turns on the front. which means two abreast while someone peels off the front until they've got to the back. Six is the most I feel comfortable with in single file - there are always exceptions - and dual carriageways is one - which we generally avoid.

Rotating chain gangs seem to work well at inducing cars to give us space, I think probably because the whole thing is moving rather than just trolling along two abreast. The outside line is the 'pace' line, the inside one the slower, so the last man on the inside pulls out to join the pace line. Tricky things to get steady and smooth though with a different group composition every week and not a place for daydreamers.

If I'm out for a ride with one other, then two abreast or single file as work rate and traffic dictate.

One of the big challenges is persuading people to ride two abreast on main roads (carefully avoiding the use of the word 'busy' or 'fast' here because they are too vague).

In my experience, you are more likely to have a near miss in single file because drivers chance it. The larger the group in single file, the more risky it is.


I entirely understand Jim 1003's standpoint, but selective statistics have a habit of distorting things. The majority of fatalities and serious injuries over recent years have been of singletons, not of the outside cyclist of a pair. As far as approaching a blind bend is concerned, as a cyclist your slower pace means that you have a longer period of observation of the road in front, plus one of the front two will have an advantageous angle to look around the corner. If someone comes around the corner on the wrong side you're probably stuffed wherever you are (cp Giant Alpecin).

The closest 'near miss' of late - well that would have been yesterday, on my own, about three feet from the kerb and someone passes and slams the door on me while I'm still level with their back wheel. What did that achieve? Well, it took them 1km to get more than 75m ahead of me, so ****** if i know.

There is no absolute answer - it is always a judgment thing. Unfortunately, judgment often seems in short supply when it comes to motor vehicles passing cyclists. It currently 'amuses' me how many cars will insist on overtaking only to hit the brakes straight after - for a bend, T junction, roundabout or to turn off. Don't get me started on left hooks - I don't think that many motorists really appreciate that a left hook is like dropping a solid wall in front of a cyclist (but one with rotating bits to munch them up).

Most entertaining failed overtake of late - six of us going in single file up a hill. There's a D of E group walking down it on our side of the road. We pull out to pass them but the car still decides to overtake. There is of course a bend and another car comes round it. They fortunately both stop, but it takes some untangling - cars, pedestrians and bicycles all over the place. Of course, had she waited maybe 30 seconds, she could have passed the pedestrians and then the cyclists in decent order. Had the car coming down the hill been going any faster they could have got all twelve of us between them. So, here's the question - what would have happened if we had been two abreast?

In reply to nniff: Far more eloquently explained what I've been trying to say - it's not "always single file" or "always two up" - you ride according to what's safest, and whatever Jim whatever-his-name-is says, I know when it's safe to let a car overtake from years of riding the roads where I live. We've frequently had situations like your DoE experience - riding along roads in the Dales, two of us in single file and thinking we're being considerate, because "nobody would be daft enough to pass here - they can't see" and sure enough, round they go, slam on, pull in, near miss. Had we been two up they wouldn't have considered it. When it's safe, we line out.

People asking about getting run into from a car coming the other way round a bend - there's very few genuinely single track roads near us so if you're riding two abreast tightly then there's no problem - and remember on a bike you're a bit higher up and (importantly) you can hear better.

In reply to CurlyStevo:

Absolutely - only that's not what he's been saying, is it? He's been saying "the highway code is ALWAYS right and you should NEVER ride two abreast on narrow or busy roads". Nobody's said it's ALWAYS safer to ride two up. What's been said is that in some situations riding two abreast is going to make it MORE safe - old Jim can't quite get that, unfortunately.

In reply to CurlyStevo:



Where? Honestly interested to hear where there are "massive queues" behind cyclists - assume they're a club, so why not get in touch (most have FB pages etc) and ask them to reduce their groups or something.

We had a chap ring up about our chaingang groups on a Saturday as every Saturday he is "massively held up travelling between Harrogate and Bradford". The section of road he's talking about is part of our regular route, and is 4.5 miles long. A mile and a half of it is a 30mph zone. We average about 25-28mph down there. So we're on that stretch of road for about 10 minutes. Let's say he follows us from the very start to the very end and can't get past (never happens, ever, but stick with it), and let's assume he could otherwise have done 60mph on the national speed limit bit (you can't, as there's sharp bends) and sticks to 30mph in the village. So he could do it in 6 minutes. So his journey is delayed by an absolute MAXIMUM of 4 minutes, and is probably a third of that tops. But his perception is he's "massively held up" - by less than two minutes in a journey of about 45 minutes.

In reply to andy:

Unfortunately it's people's perceptions that count. Facts are irrelevant nowadays.

In reply to The New NickB:


I agree completely with this - as a motorist who lives in one of the most popular country lane cycling routes in our area (see my post above). I have to go through several miles of single track lanes to get to a main road in any direction and am continually driving near single and groups of cyclists. The singletons and small groups seem best. Yes, it can be irritating when a small group are cycling two abreast slowly to chat. However, it's not dangerous provided no one is so irritated they try to overtake dangerously. Other than being waved past in sections where it's not safe for anyone for me to overtake, the most dangerous behaviour consistently is large groups (clearly clubs in many cases) going at high speeds in peletons around narrow blind bends two or more abreast. I've had several very near misses where I have saved them from being wiped out. They have been completely unable to stop or change course and have relied upon me being able to do so. I now drive deliberately defensively as a result. I don't have to do this with other road users, including horse riders, just cyclists. I completely get their vulnerability and having to impose themselves for safety, but there is rarely any acknowledgement of your care and attention, no apology when they cock up, and absolutely no stopping to let you past, ever.

In reply to Lightweight: I think someone had it right further up the thread, it's about controlling the speed of the car behind you when it's necessary because of impending danger such as stopping distance issues or overtaking dangerously. That's the advice given to advanced drivers who also enjoy careful instruction about how much space to give to cyclists. I can't imagine too many advanced drivers kill or injure cyclists.

In reply to yesbutnobutyesbut:



My brother and son are in a cycling club in Edinburgh, both get very frustrated on club runs due to the insistence of many in the club to refuse to pull over, at all, for cars or HGV drivers. My brother describes some of them as absolute nutters in their determination to ride 2 or 3 abreast out to the white centre line, however many cars or HGV's are behind. He tells me it actually puts him off going out with them now due to abuse being shouted at them from some drivers, which he sympathises with.

In reply to andy:


^ Actually, I never said that, time you went to Spec savers. I said Rule 66 of the Highway code states you should ride single file on narrow or busy roads, and when riding round bends. I also said the Highway code is used to decide liability, which it is. I've said a few times that my experience is that the advice from the Highway code is correct and good advice. Do carry on, but stop telling others it's safe to ignore the Highway code, because it's obviously not.

In reply to Jim 1003: Hmmm... so just explain what the difference between saying "the highway code is ALWAYS right" and "the advice from the highway code is correct and good advice" (you appear to have added the "in my experience" bit). And your assertion that "the highway code is used to decide liability" is also clearly bollox, as a police officer stated very clearly to me that a driver overtaking cyclists and then knocking one off becase they overtake where they can't see the road ahead would absolutely be found to be liable.

I think your problem is that you seem to struggle with the concept that things can sometimes be right and sometimes not - so as multiple, very experienced road cyclists have told you, riding two up on narrow roads is SOMETIMES the safer option than leaving a gap that a driver thinks they can squeeze through. Nobody has said ALWAYS. Nobody has said "ignore the highway code". You're the one who insists the HC is ALWAYS correct - everyone else is saying it sometimes is, it sometimes isn't - and as the one who's going to get squashed if someone overtakes and then pulls in and hits me, I'll decide when that is, ta.

In reply to andy:


Decide is too strong but the HWC should bits have evidential status in court. See quote higher. If you break it, that will count against you, even if it's not decisive.

In reply to MG: yes, I saw that - but equally my mate (who would know) said that if someone overtook a pair of cyclists when there was insufficient room to make the pass safely, or couldn't see (as in Rule 163) then there'd be no blame on the riders. It's not an absolute - either way.

In reply to andy:

The Highway Code is ALWAYS correct.

It says 'should' and not 'must'. 'Must' is used when describing a law, 'should' is used when describing best practice.

So cyclists 'should' avoid riding two abreast on busy roads and narrow lanes. Doesn't not mean Cyclist 'must' NEVER ride two abreast on busy roads and narrow lanes.

In reply to andy:


^ I don't think you understand, the Highway code is used to decide liability, amongst other factors. I know that because I decide liability in accidents, that's part of my job. I used to do it in criminal cases, but now I do it in civil cases. As MG said, the Highway code has a legal status, it can't actually be wrong in these terms, if you contravene it, then you can affect your liability or reduce your entitlement to compensation should you have an accident which is not your fault entirely.

You think you know better than those that write the Highway code, that's up to you. I think it is irresponsible to advise others to ignore it. Do you think the same about the advice in the Highway code to car drivers or do you think just cyclists can ignore it when they want, or is it okay for car drivers to do it as well?
Do you advise people to say that when they sit their driving test?

Also, I was wondering if you often put sound effects like Hmmmm in your letters or is it a new trend in internet writing?

In reply to Jim 1003:


Out of curiosity have you read what Cyclecraft says on the subject?

In reply to Jim 1003:


No proper cycling club ever rides 3 abreast. I've never seen or been part of a clubrun riding more than 2 abreast.

In reply to KevinD:


Have you got any specific links where Cyclecraft advise you not to follow it?

In reply to yesbutnobutyesbut:


I've never seen any group of cyclists riding 3 abreast. It's a dead giveaway for someone who is literally just making shit up.

In reply to Trevers:

Really, try googling 3 abreast cyclists and see all the pictures of cyclists with club colours cycling 3 abreast, innit...dead give away, making shit up innit...

In reply to yesbutnobutyesbut:
Cobblers. I see it most weekends.

In reply to DancingOnRock:


It has several pages on the subject. It does mention riding two abreast for safety.

In reply to Jim 1003:


I googled it. Only examples on the first couple of pages were professional races.
Now admittedly I have been using a clean browser rather than one with lots of anti cycling shite in the history but I am not sure that would alter things dramatically.

In reply to KevinD:

It's a huge shame that a genuine concern should regress to an "us and them" argument. My post, much earlier, underlined this. As someone who encounters club cyclists every weekend I have learned a lot about their behaviour and it is... pretty good really! A bit of patience and consideration from all sides is normally enough to see any delays reduced to a minimum.

It is also incorrect to suggest that clubs don't stray outside of the rules or recommendations at times. I certainly have seen groups of club cyclists riding more than 2 abreast, though broadly within the white lines. I have seen much worse though, and some puzzling occasions where club cyclists have seemed to act almost out of a sense of mischief or bravado. Let me give you an example:

I was driving down a country lane past a village and there was a group of club cyclists ahead (all in their club colours). The group was quite large and was split into about 2 groups with the second group of about 25 a little behind the first. The road passes over a much larger and faster road but carries on, on the other side. The cyclists were all going straight on. They crossed the road as a group, having pulled up to the junction in one bulk. When they crossed they all set off at once in quite a wide wedge filling up both sides of the road when they reached the other side with a number of them on the wrong side of the plastic bollard thing at the junction. They then cycled anything up to 4 or 5 abreast for a hundred yards or so until, as a group, they thinned back out to 2 abreast or single file in places. When they crossed, anyone approaching the junction from the other side would have encountered a number of cyclists on their side of the road.

Now, this puzzled me, didn't annoy me, but I wondered whether this was just impatience, cockiness, some kind of set approach for crossing major roads... no idea.

But it does happen, unfortunately, club cycling groups are not whiter than white. I will reiterate that most of the time I have no issue with them and as you will see from my earlier post, my attitude to cyclists is a considerate one.

In reply to Trevers:


Have you not ? Its a bit of a side issue here because everyone recognises it as wrong but that does not mean it does not happen. In sportives especially

In reply to KevinD:

Here you are. Bunch of muppets
http://www.woolwichcyclingclub.org.uk/cycling-etiquette.html

In reply to MG:

Yes I recognise 2 of them actually, the first one is yesbutno, the second is Andy....

In reply to Jim 1003:
I can Google image search many things and find results, it doesn't mean that those things are a regular occurrence on British roads.

In reply to Jim 1003:

can you post a couple of pictures of 3 abreast club cyclists, from the many available?

In reply to andy:

I wonder how you would feel if you guys were delayed regularly on the same road section by 4 mins. I'm guessing here you wouldn't like it as it would mess up your expected run times!

In reply to DancingOnRock:

I've never seen a group of keen cyclists pull over to let cars past, I'm struggling to think of a time I've seen any cyclist do this other than on single track roads with passing places.

In reply to Jim Hamilton:

This post is about groups of cyclists, isn't it ? not specifically about club cyclists. The majority of cyclists see round here (and there are a lot of cyclists round here) are not on club rides. With the possible exception of early Sunday morning.

In reply to GrahamD:


Jim Hamilton is responding to a specific post.

In reply to CurlyStevo:


If it's not a single track road then cars can overtake anyway, can't they? The only exception is is if there heavy continuous traffic coming the other way, but that's not usual for any length of time.

In reply to CurlyStevo:


You certainly are guessing and you're wrong.

In reply to Marek:

Or lots of corners, which is pretty common.

In reply to MG:


Yes, good point. And thinking about it, I do fairly regularly pull over (not necessarily stop) and wave cars through at suitable points. What bugs me then is when they dither and get to the next bend before overtaking! But at least I try.

In reply to Marek:

Yes lots of cyclists do try to make way, which is the sensible thing to do, and means everyone gets along OK.

I am not keen on waving cars through. As a driver, I want to see clearly what is happening, not be encouraged by someone else to overtake when I can't really see.

In reply to KevinD:


And where does it say in the Highway Code that you mustn't ride two abreast?

In reply to yesbutnobutyesbut:


Absolutely - s'not a problem. We just stop (it's cows, usually), have a drink of water and then crack on.

In reply to DancingOnRock:


Sorry I was referring to Jim 1003 religious mantra about it being dangerous. It takes a rather different approach around safety.
"If the road situation is such that it would be unsafe for traffic to pass cyclists riding in single file, then riding two abreast can help to dissuade following drivers from doing so."

In reply to MG:


Personally I only use it when going onto verge/mini passing point to try and indicate that its not just random riding but deliberate. Particularly since whilst i will slow down I wont always stop so it could just look really shit and dangerous riding.

In reply to KevinD:


To be fair, all Jim is actually saying is that he thinks the highway code advice (on narrow and fast roads) is more likely to be evidence based and therefore better advice than some individual peoples experience.

In reply to GrahamD:


Actually he isnt. he is announcing it as fact and then failing to back it up with evidence. He then keeps doubling down on his stupidity.

In reply to KevinD:


^ Rather an extreme viewpoint to state that those who think it is unsafe to ride 2 abreast on narrow roads , busy roads or around bends as per Rule 66 are expressing a religious mantra. I am only quoting that advice because I think it is irresponsible to advise people to ignore the Highway code, as you do. It is your tirades disagreeing with the Highway code advice which are really surprising. Can you just give us your views on wither it is only cyclists who should ignore the Highway code. Is it okay for car drivers to ignore the advice in the Highway code, or is it only cyclists who can do that?

In reply to Jim 1003:


Have you read cyclecraft yet?

In reply to KevinD:

Why so much interest in this? It's a guide; it doesn't supersede the HWC. Also not universally admired by cyclists

https://departmentfortransport.wordpress.com/2012/06/28/f*ck-you-john-frank...

Edit: edit link for success!!

In reply to MG:


Because it is the authoritative guide on cycling for the UK. Anyone talking about cycling safety really should have read it.


If you look those who dont like him are those who have given up on the idea of actually using the road.

In reply to KevinD:
Can you answer the question below or else stop posting irresponsible rubbish about cycling, the Highway code and road safety. I note the other poster Andy couldn't answer this one either.

Can you just give us your views on wither it is only cyclists who should ignore the Highway code. Is it okay for car drivers to ignore the advice/rules in the Highway code, or is it only cyclists who can do that?

In reply to KevinD:


He is announceing as fact that its probably the best advice given that its far more likely to be evidence based if thats what you mean. In terms of personal attacks I'll leave it to you.


Personally I think proclaiming that I know better than the highway code a bit arrogant to be honest.

In reply to Jim 1003:


You really are a poster boy for dunning-kruger arent you?

In reply to GrahamD:


He hasnt actually provided any evidence for that.


I would tend to defer to the experts on the subject. Its just they dont agree with his simplistic idea.

In reply to Jim 1003:

I'm perfectly capable of answering it, ta - I just have other stuff to do than respond to patronising crap. However - if it helps:

Yes, I think it's probably sensible for all road users to do something that's not a HC recommendation in certain circumstances. Now I know that in your binary, simplistic world, the bit in bold is probably a bit of a struggle, but I'm sure there are times it's safer to do something other than that stated as "should" in the HC.

In reply to Jim 1003:
Rule 66 (two abreast) is "should" so it's optional just like helmets & hi-viz (Rule 59). Individuals are expected to use their judgement. Using judgement informed by the highway code is not ignoring it.

Riding two abreast on a narrow road where there isn't room to overtake might be just as appropriate as riding primary. Road users have a responsibility to let people get from A to B. They don't have a responsibility to facilitate unsafe maneuvers.

In reply to elsewhere, Andy:

^ That's factually incorrect, and rubbish, this is the actual legal position verbatim from the Highway code,

It is important that all road users are aware of The Highway Code and are considerate towards each other. This applies to pedestrians as much as to drivers and riders. Many of the rules in The Highway Code are legal requirements, and if you disobey these rules you are committing a criminal offence. You may be fined, given penalty points on your licence or be disqualified from driving. In the most serious cases you may be sent to prison. Such rules are identified by the use of the wordsMUST/MUST NOT.
In addition, the rule includes an abbreviated reference to the legislation which creates the offence. See anexplanation of the abbreviations.

This is the section regarding the should rules,

Although failure to comply with the other rules of The Highway Code will not, in itself, cause a person to be prosecuted, The Highway Code may be used in evidence in any court proceedings under the Traffic Acts (seeThe road user and the law) to establish liability. This includes rules which use advisory wording such as should/should not or do/do not.Knowing and applying the rules contained in The Highway Code could significantly reduce road casualties. Cutting the number of deaths and injuries that occur on our roads every day is a responsibility we all share. The Highway Code can help us discharge that responsibility. Further information on driving/riding techniques can be found in The Official DSA Guide to Driving the essential skills and The Official DSA Guide to Riding the essential skill

^ Not according to the Highway code. It doesn't say that, you've just made that up. It says the opposite, it says you should ride single file on narrow roads.

I've got to say I'm not surprised there are so many accidents with cyclists. Get a grip for God's sake and resit your driving tests so you actually know what you are talking about.
Please refrain from offering stupid advice to ignore the Highway Code.

In reply to Jim 1003:

Are you claiming that helmets and hi-viz are not optional? Are you claiming that riding two abreast is a "must not"?


Oh, I've used judgment which is what you're expected to do for "should" because they're not "must" or "must not".

In reply to elsewhere:


No that isn't what it says, it explains it clearly above. The musts are linked to primary offences. Cycling 2 abreast is not an offence, but in the opinion of those who wrote the Highway code, it is potentially dangerous on narrow roads, busy roads and on bends, hence the advice is not to do it.
If you do it and cause an accident, then the fact you ignored the advice may be used in evidence in proceedings. It will certainly be used in civil cases resulting in you losing or having compensation reduced.
I attribute blame in these civil cases for a living, and when cyclists or motorists contravene the should's then the liability falls against them. If you contravene a must then you can face prosecution for a specific offence.
If you think it's safer to do it, then go ahead, but I'm saying keep your stupid, irresponsible advice to yourself because it's contrary to the accepted code of good practice on the road. Accepted by most road users anyway, apart from cyclists, it would appear. Or at least point out when you give contrary advice that you are doing so.
Can you just clarify that you think it is also okay for car drivers to ignore the should Highway code rules if they feel like it.

In reply to Lightweight:

OK

I watched this topic for some time and I think it is time I said something, since my life WAS nearly lost most probably because of cyclists riding two abreast. I have been a cyclist for many years, as I have been a motorist and motorcyclist.

The advice NOT to cycle two abreast in narrow lanes and Major roads is what seems to be the important bit. And it is the latter which nearly cost me my life. I have never cycled two abreast when I have felt it impeded others or made it more likely that I myself would be more vulnerable, so pragmatism tends to rule my life rather than principles.

I nearly lost my life when two cyclists decided it was perfectly OK to cycle two abreast going slowly uphill in an avalanche tunnel abroad. A car-driver coming up behind - it was a major road, so going quite fast - possibly saw them too late and decided to overtake them. Thus he was breaking the law when it is normally against the law to overtake in such situations. It was near to the tunnel entrance but regardless, it was still stupid to do so.

Coming the other way on a motorcycle, and too fast I will admit, I was presented with the two cyclists and the car taking up virtually ALL of the road, and it was only by good luck that I avoided being splattered on the front of the car or on the tunnel entrance.

When I presented this information on this forum some time ago all I got was abuse (for going too fast), but I would suggest that many should really think about our choices and the possible results of these choices. I'm all for making it safer for cyclists when it is necessary, and I will 'own' the road just as many others where I see fit, but there is a time and place for this. If the cyclists had NOT been cycling two abreast then the whole situation might not have arisen.

Don't EVER gamble, especially when a ton of machinery is involved.

In reply to Jim 1003:




Such an astounding lack of self awareness.

In reply to death-on-the roads:

Hang on. We have a car overtaking when it shouldn't, you going too fast, and cyclists two-abreast in the difficult light near a tunnel entrance. Strikes me that all parties are at fault, and stupid. Why are you focusing on the cyclists alone?

In reply to death-on-the roads:
A good post, this illustrates the dangers of 2 abreast cycling, where, possibly, the other drivers may also have a liability by going too fast. The point is, there would have been a very good chance the cyclists would also have been injured in any resulting collision, all avoidable by keeping single file as per the advice. Most of the serious or fatal bicycle accidents I dealt with involved 2 abreast cycling, and all would have been avoidable by keeping in single file.
It is true to say that in some of those bad driving by car drivers played a part, but when the reconstruction was done , it was very clear if the cyclists were single file then they would not have been injured.

In reply to Jim 1003:

Considering how I ride two abreast so rarely I must be near immune from serious/fatal accidents if you are right that most accidents involve two abreast.

Very strange that Rospa don't seem to be aware of your specialist knowledge as they don't mention dangers of two abreast.

http://www.rospa.com/road-safety/advice/pedal-cyclists/facts-figures/

Perhaps you should tell them.

In reply to Lightweight:

Cyclists riding 2 abreast is work of the devil

In reply to elliott92:


No. It's much worse than that.

In reply to Jim 1003:

Given that the guidance on overtaking cyclists, single file or not, is to give them as much room as you would a car (i.e. move into the opposite lane), then, having decided to overtake, it was inevitable that the speeding car would collide with the oncoming speeding motorcycle. The cyclists were, essentially, an obstruction that the car driver was unable to safely react to in time, because they were not driving to the conditions (dark entrance to the tunnel). They could have been a parked, queuing, or broken-down car, a rockfall, or any other sort of obstruction.

Frankly, if you really are involved in traffic collision investigation, and you can't correctly identify the primary cause of the collision (excessive speed for conditions), and identify the cyclists as incidental to the collision (since it could have been any sort of obstruction on the road), then I'm not surprised at the victim blaming that goes on in the courts.


Or by not being on the road at all...?

How many cyclists are killed whilst riding two abreast, compared to those riding solo, or in single file? I suspect the vast majority of cyclists killed are those riding solo, in town.

In reply to captain paranoia:


From the above link @14:01 ... "Almost half of cyclist deaths occur on rural roads."

In reply to Lusk:

Thanks, I hadn't got that far down the thread...

In reply to KevinD:


Well no, the starting assumption should be that the highway code promotes best practice and that those advocating otherwise should be providing quantatative evidence that it is wrong.


Well the guidance of experts is in the highway code. Irrespective of your personal feelings towards Jim.

In reply to GrahamD:


No, he is claiming it is a specific safety reason. That is something he needs to provide evidence for.


I keep referencing the expert guidance which points out it is a judgement call and it can be safer to ride two abreast on narrow roads (aka those which where it would be unsafe to pass cyclists in single file).
That your or Jim dont seem to recognise it is odd. Since anyone who actually cares about cyclist safety as opposed to just using it as an excuse to attack cyclists would know it.


Indifference really apart from when it comes to him sprouting badly informed shite.

In reply to GrahamD:


This guy didn't.

http://www.cyclinguk.org/sites/default/files/990709_pboetengmp_ben_bradshaw...

In reply to KevinD:


I am a cyclist. Pretty much all my cycling is on narrow country roads. I just disagree with your view on where two abreast is safer, but probably because I generally find that its stuff coming towards me that is the real danger, not something behind who I can block by my position on the road anyway.

In reply to KevinD:


No he doesn't 'need to' anymore than you 'need' to provide quantatative evidence that the highway code is wrong and that its advice is actually less safe.

In reply to GrahamD:

Bloody hell, you've been on UKC for 15 years and you still haven't learnt one of the cardinal rules of the forums - Cyclists are never wrong

In reply to GrahamD:


It isnt just my view though but that of the bloke who literally wrote the official book on the subject of cycling and also did the cycling syllabuses. It is of course a judgement call which is preferable under any particular situation.
That though isnt what Jim is suggesting.

In reply to KevinD:


Official book? Surely that's the HWC, or are you claiming all stationary offices publications are "official". If so, there is, I assume a mismatch between the HWC and legal position regarding liability, and Cyclecraft (I don't have a copy so can't check).

In reply to MG:

The HWC is a shortform guidebook. It identifies the legal requirements, and makes some recommendations. It points out that some situations require you to use your best judgement.

Further to the HWC are instruction manuals for drivers and cyclists, that go into more detail, helping to inform that 'best judgement'. These manuals are called 'Roadcraft' and 'Cyclecraft', and are official publications of the same government department that produces the HWC.

In addition to 'Cyclecraft' are a number of teaching guides for cyclists, produced for the 'Bikeability' award scheme. This is the official 'National Standard for Cycle Training', administered by the DfT.

www.bikeability.org.uk

In reply to Jim 1003:


Either you go out looking for accidents involving cyclists riding two up, or you've dealt with a tiny number, or you've just made that up. I suspect it's a combination of at least two of these.

http://www.rospa.com/road-safety/advice/pedal-cyclists/facts-figures/

Why is your apparently vast experience completely different to the official statistics? People get hit because drivers don't look, or riders don't look properly. The vast majority are at junctions or roundabouts.

In reply to andy:




^ No, as usual you are posting nonsense, the ROSPA figures don't differentiate between single file cyclists and 2 abreast.
I see they attribute 50% of cycle deaths to rural accidents.

In reply to Jim 1003:


Which is curious if 2 abreast is as important as you say. It's as if they don't think it's worth mentioning.

In reply to Jim 1003: Oh FFS - read it properly. You have asserted that "almost every" killed or seriously injured accident was caused because people were riding two abreast - what the ROSPA stats say is that the vast majority are at junctions or roundabouts, where riding two up wouldn't be a factor.

Did you spot this bit?

Common Cycling Accidents

Motorist emerging into path of cyclist
Motorist turning across path of cyclist
Cyclist riding into the path of a motor vehicle, often riding off a pavement
Cyclist and motorist going straight ahead
Cyclist turning right from a major road and from a minor road
Child cyclist playing or riding too fast

Only one of those (cyclist and motorist going straight ahead) could be affected by whether there's two bikes (but equally it could be where they're in single file and a car pulls in too fast).

And you are consistently failing to even acknowledge there could be some situations where riding two abreast on a narrow road to deter cars from overtaking (as recommended in Cyclecraft) might be safer than riding in single file. Why is this so hard for you?

In reply to GrahamD:


I consider stuff coming up behind me to be the greater danger. I can generally see what's coming up in front of me much better than is coming up from behind. And they're in the opposite carriageway, not in mine.

For that reason, I consider my visibility to cars approaching from behind to be more important; I can see and take evasive action to most hazards from the front.

In reply to death-on-the roads:
if it was illegal for the car to overtake why dose it make any difference that the cyclist were riding two a breast?

In reply to Lightweight:

What's the difference between cyclist riding two abreast and a car f*cking up the overtake and one cyclist overtaking another, a car trying to overtake both, and f*cking it up? Not much. Jim seems to be implying that being two abreast will negate the fact that any accident caused by a car over taking will be the drivers fault. It won't. Doesn't matter what the obstruction is, if you f*ck up your overtake, it's your fault. If you try to overtake a sheep in the road on a blind bend and go headfirst into amoncoming traffic, it's not the sheeps fault, it's yours for overtaking poorly. The sheep was a contributing factor but not the cause. There's no liability with the sheep, it was the drivers decision to not be patient and go for the overtake.
i do find it worrying that him professionally apportions blame, because he's wrong.

In reply to La benya:

I'm no more a legal expert than you but taking what is written in the HWC at face value, I think you are wrong. If cyclists are in breach of the recommendations (e.g. by cycling two abreast on a "narrow or busy" section of road), then they will have some* liability as well as the driver.

*My guess in this situation "some" would be seen as negligibly small because as you say the driver has clearly broken the rules more fully and dangerously, but the general point seems clear - follow the HWC or risk legal consequences.

In reply to MG:

In which case the argument is ridiculous because a negligible amount of liability is, well, negligible. It doesn't matter.
In my experience (insurance which admittedly will work differently to a civil or criminal case in apportioning blame) the fact that cyclists were two abreast would be immaterial to the fact. The promixal cause of the crash would be dangerous driving and the only one liable for the drivers actions is the driver. Being impatient because of something as mundane as cyclist riding two abreast or defensively is laughable as a defence. Just say it out loud as if speaking to a judge or jury...

In reply to La benya:


Did you read the rest of my post? The point was that *in general* cyclists not following the HWC will be asking for trouble. From the Road Taffic Act 1988, especially the last phrase.

" ‘a failure on the part of a person to observe any provision of The Highway Code shall not of itself render that person liable to criminal proceedings of any kind, but any such failure may in any proceedings ( civil or criminal and including proceedings for an offence under the Traffic Acts, the Public Passenger Vehicles Act 1981 or sections 18 to 23 of the Transport Act 1985) be relied upon by any party to the proceedings as tending to establish or negate any liability which is in question in those proceedings.’

In reply to MG:


Does that mean I can go through red lights on my bike without feeling guilty, assuming no consequences to anyone else, or is that itself an offence under one of those traffic acts?

In reply:

MG

"Hang on. We have a car overtaking when it shouldn't, you going too fast, and cyclists two-abreast in the difficult light near a tunnel entrance. Strikes me that all parties are at fault, and stupid. Why are you focusing on the cyclists alone?"

Because the cyclists CAUSED the chain of events, that's why. The car driver would not have been illegally overtaking most likely had it not been for the cyclists riding two abreast.

capatain paranoia

"Given that the guidance on overtaking cyclists, single file or not, is to give them as much room as you would a car (i.e. move into the opposite lane), then, having decided to overtake, it was inevitable that the speeding car would collide with the oncoming speeding motorcycle."

This is simply not true. The car took up nearly all of my carriageway when, if they had been cycling single file, he would not have moved over so much .. and I WOULD have had room to get past safely.

tim000

"if it was illegal for the car to overtake why does it make any difference that the cyclist were riding two a breast?"

Because, as remarked above, they CAUSED the chain of events.


Some more background for this incident.

It was a main road with a few short avalanche tunnels now and then. There were no roads turning off and the mountain was quite barren. Abroad, so they drive on the right. The road for the cyclists was curving to the right, with the mountain to the left, so the support pillars were to the right and possibly hindered the view of anyone coming up behind. The cyclists were obviously in the best light and this perhaps affected their decision to cycle two abreast, if they even thought about this.

As for the car driver, I can only guess as to why he deemed it necessary to overtake in the tunnel, possibly because he came upon them suddenly, as suggested, or he was just impatient. This incident happened a long time ago and only lasted a few seconds, but I think I can recall seeing brake lights reflected in the tunnel. Not sure, but it would explain a lot.

I was travelling too fast, possibly between 80 - 90 mph, when the speed limit was probably 55 or 60 mph, but the maximum legal closing speed would be 110 mph minimum, so a car driver should be capable of assessing such situations, and the car had probably slowed to 20 mph or less when overtaking the cyclists. They were cycling really slowly. I am not a particularly reckless person, and at the time, I didn't consider my speed that excessive for the conditions. I was wrong, but it might not have made that much difference in actual fact.

As I said last time, I think the fact that the road was virtually empty, and it being such a pleasant day, were causative factors in this near miss. I am pretty sure that if I had died, the cyclists and the car driver would have felt some guilt and complicity in the incident, but I fully accept I was equally culpable. The point I am trying to make is that the incident STARTED with the decision by the cyclists, not with me, and the car driver exacerbated this by his illegal driving. When I arrived at the critical point, I was lucky that they were all outside of the tunnel by then, since it did give me just enough room to go around the car without hitting the side wall of the tunnel. A second or two either way and things might have been very different.

The cyclists might not have been breaking the law, which can't be said for myself and the car driver, but they did act recklessly in my view, when they could have just cycled in single file through the tunnel. Pragmatism over principles - it might just save a life.

In reply to death-on-the roads:

Nope. The cyclist didn't cause anything. The poor decision of the driver did

In reply to nufkin:

No, because that's breaking a specific law. Why is this difficult to understand?!? There's a difference between an actual law and an advisory best practice.

In reply to MG:


Yup I did. Doesn't make a difference. They aren't asking for anything. They are immaterial to the actual cause of the accident which is dangerous driving. As long as they aren't breaking a law then the liability lies with the driver.

In reply to La benya:

I'm beginning to understand why the "us and them" attitude exists.

In reply to La benya:

I'll believe the Traffic Act over your assertions. But carry on if you like.

In reply to Tom Valentine:

I'm not an us or a them. I find it astonishing that people think there is anything that makes performing a risky manoeuvre acceptable.
Nothing does, if the guy in front is being a dick or being dangerous, fine. But how does that ever make dangerous driving acceptable? It doesn't.

I find the us and them mentality ridiculous too because you're basically pitting someone in a death machine against a new born baby. That's how one sided it is. As Spider-Man said 'with great power comes great responsibility'... basically don't drive like a tw*t around someone on a bike no matter how infuriating they are being or how repulsive their Lycra is. There is never an excuse.

In reply to MG:

What part of the traffic act is contravening what I'm saying? Serious question. Because I don't think you know.

In reply to La benya:

I quoted it above. Unless there is some bizarre legal interpretation, the Traffic Act is quite clear

[Breaking the HWC] may in any proceedings ...be relied upon by any party to the proceedings as tending to establish or negate any liability which is in question in those proceedings.’

which contradicts your claim that

"As long as they aren't breaking a law then the liability lies with the driver"

In reply to MG:

Ignoring the whole advisory 'should' thing that was discussed earlier.
You seem to be implying that not following an advisory note in the Highway Code would make you liable for someone else's dangerous driving. You're wrong. That's not contradictory to the code.

In reply to La benya:

Sorry, you are simply wrong. It's the whole HWC, not just the specific laws that the above quote from the Traffic Act is referring to. I quoted the introduction to the HWC above that says the same thing. "Shoulds" are not just advice, they carry evidential (I believe that is the legal term) weight in court.


It could make you somewhat liable. Again, read the quote above.

In reply to La benya:

Here you go again. From the HWC introduction

"Although failure to comply with the other rules of The Highway Code will not, in itself, cause a
person to be prosecuted, The Highway Code may be used in evidence in any court proceedings
under the Traffic Acts (see The road user and the law) to establish liability. This includes rules
which use advisory wording such as ‘should/should not’ or ‘do/do not’"

In reply to MG:

May be used. There is no liability to put to the cyclist if the accident was caused by dangerous driving on the part of the driver.

In reply to La benya:

Says who? Have a read

http://www.cyclelaw.co.uk/cycling-distractions-and-contributory-negligence
.
In case you can't be bothered, from the final section:

"The National Cycling Charity (NCC) has campaigned [2] to have the policy of the law changed so that findings of contributory negligence are exceptional and not found against cyclists who ride without a helmet, without high-visibility clothing, or for technical breaches of the Highway Code’s non-statutory rules for cyclists.
Despite the NCC’s efforts, courts have shown a willingness to make reductions in damages to cyclists in appropriate cases."

In reply to MG:

You're talking about instances where a driver has gone into a cyclist at night because he couldn't see them. Or an accident where the injury was worse because they weren't wearing a helmet and so the driver would get done for a lesser injury.
In the instance of a driver being held up behind slow moving cyclists he is in control of his actions. There is nothing contributory other than the drivers dangerous manoeuvre. If it was at night, and the cyclists weren't visible and the driver went for the overtake because he didn't see them, yeah, their negligence against the HWC would be considered.

In reply to Lightweight:

Think of it this way. If you went to a shooting range and while you were loading, ready to shoot someone wandered onto the range (for whatever reason, to retrieve a target) you would not be entitled to dart shooting just because they are doing something wrong. You are the one in charge of the gun, and you are the one in control on pulling the trigger.

Now think of the same scenario but you've already started shooting. Mid way through your clip the same guy wanders into your line and you shoot him. His actions are the main cause and liability will be apportioned based on his error as well as yours.

See the subtle difference? If you're in a car sitting behind slow moving plonkers in Lycra it just doesn't matter. You are the only one that can pull the trigger to make the manoeuvre and so you are the only one liable for the outcome.

If your belayer dropped you by letting go of the rope, because you had back clipped every QD on the way up it would still be his fault, even if you'd done something wrong. If he dropped you half way, caught you but you fell the rest because of the back clipping then liability would be split. See?!

Aaaannyway, I hope that you would at least not go for a dangerous overtake no matter what the person in front is doing. Otherwise you're a maniac

In reply to La benya:

That's rubbish, you don't know what you are talking about, apart from the fact the cyclist might be seriously injured or dead, liability is attributed to motorists or cyclists who are partly to blame, and their compensation is agreed on that basis, e.g. knock for knock or 50/50 or 60 /40, etc. I know that because I attribute on their cases.

Can you give me your views about cars driving two abreast on a carriageway wide enough for them to do so, the Highway Code does not prohibit this, what about motorcycles going 2 abreast?
What about pedestrians walking 2 abreast round blind bends on country roads. They could try to control when drivers overtake as well, if they were really suicidal. It would be absolutely great if we all ignored the Highway code, wouldn't it?

In reply to Jim 1003:

This is worrying. A) because you seem to be wrong all the time and B) because only a court can attribute blame in a criminal or civil case. You might give evidence to help the decision. Proximate cause. Dangerous driving.


You mean like any number of roads without markings, first one that comes to mind int he Chelsea embankment? Yeah, fine.


Huh? Again, if someone try's to over take them on a blind bend they would be driving dangerously. The proper course of action would be to wait for when it's appropriate to pass.

In reply to La benya:


^ More rubbish. You are forgetting about insurance settlements. I investigate, prepare cases and determine liability for our clients. Cases are settled, pursued or not on my recommendations. It's better not to give opinions when you are clueless.

Your answer to the questions re other road users such as cars, pedestrians etc going 2 abreast are absurd. Pedestrians walking around a blind bend 2 abreast would be the author of their own demise.

In reply to Jim 1003:

I'm very aware of what a loss adjuster does, thanks. I'm saying that you're clearly a shitty one and one that can't put his finger on the cause of an accident for toffee.

In reply to La benya:
I'm not a loss adjuster, your clueless. The responses you write below are hilarious, this is one of the most absurd...in fact it's not worth responding to what you write it is so puerile.


La Benya ...'You mean like any number of roads without markings, first one that comes to mind int he Chelsea embankment? Yeah, fine.'

In reply to Jim 1003:



As noted earlier, I really hope you take your own advice.

In reply to MG:

Contributory negligence.

That's something used in court to apportion blame.

It has no real meaning here. It's down to the cyclist to decide whether the road is busy or narrow and whether it would be better to ride in single file or two abreast.

He must take into account all the information he has to him at the time.

In real life and particularly in an accident situation it's never black and white which is why we have contributory negligence.

In reply to DancingOnRock:






^Rubbish, accident situations can often be black and white, usually depends on what witnesses say, or other irrefutable evidence. To use an extreme example, if your driving the wrong way down a motorway, that's black and white.

The highway code is the accepted way to use the road for all road users, it has legal standing. If you cycle two abreast on a narrow road, particularly on a blind bend and an accident results, it may well be entirely the fault of the cyclist. A single track road would be a good example. Apart from possibly being dead, or seriously injured you could well be blameworthy.
It would be very hard to attribute blame for that to the driver of the vehicle.

In reply to Jim 1003:
You're bonkers.


The scenario being debated is a driver attempting an overtake. There would definitely be blame. Seriously, you do this for a job?
Would you attempt an overtake of two cyclists around a bend? Even if you've been following for several miles? Just because they happen to not be following the HWC, you would think 'well it's their fault if I kill them both and hit an oncoming car while trying to overtake, so f*ck em'...??

The easy way for you to prove yourself right, and to shut me up is to provide the case law that has set the precedent for liability to be apportioned to a/ the cyclists where an incident has occurred where a driver has attempted an overtake around a bend and fucked it. I'll happily eat my words if I can read that case

In reply to La benya:


No its not. Its the general point that the HWC, in its entirety has a legal standing. This has been pointed out to you several times and you just ignore it.

In reply to La benya:




^ The scenario being debated is not overtaking around a bend, nobody has suggested that apart from you. What is being debated is cycling 2 abreast on narrow roads and /or around bends, contrary to the Highway code. That becomes particularly dangerous when the cycling speed is low, possibly uphill, and visibility around the bend is very limited, in that case you could be at risk from being hit from the rear. You are also positioning yourself closer to other vehicles which is unwise when you are vulnerable on a bicycle. You could be hit near a bend if another driver has to take avoiding action and moves over for some unavoidable obstruction. I dealt with one where a dog ran into the carriageway, car swerved and hit the outside cyclist of a pair on a narrow road. There was no central white line, this accident was not found to be the fault of the car driver. When we did the reconstruction it was clear the outer cyclist wouldn't have been hit had she been in single file, as per the Highway code.
At other times it is just contrary to theHighway code, and generally puts you at risk, which is why the code advises against it.
Doing things against the Highway code can affect your safety or that of other road users, it affects your liability, there is no need for case law because that is already a legal principle which you and others ignore.

Can you just clarify that you think it is okay for car drivers and cyclists to all ignore the Highway code, or which bits you think it is okay to ignore. Or are you saying only experienced cyclists like you can ignore it?

In reply to La benya:



Perhaps jim 1003 always acts for car insurers, trying to fend off claims from injured cyclists!

In reply to Jim Hamilton:

Good point.

In reply to Jim 1003:

It is NOT contrary to the Highway Code!

In reply to DancingOnRock:

^


Rule 66

You should

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

not ride close behind another vehicle (cyclists on club runs think this means ride so close to the cyclist in front their wheels are almost touching)

Wording of The Highway Code (Pasted from the Highway Code) :

Many of the rules in the Code are legal requirements, and if you disobey these rules you are committing a criminal offence. You may be fined, given penalty points on your licence or be disqualified from driving. In the most serious cases you may be sent to prison. Such rules are identified by the use of the words MUST/MUST NOT. In addition, the rule includes an abbreviated reference to the legislation which creates the offence. See an explanation of the abbreviations.

Although failure to comply with the other rules of the Code will not, in itself, cause a person to be prosecuted, The Highway Code may be used in evidence in any court proceedings under the Traffic Acts (see The road user and the law) to establish liability. This includes rules which use advisory wording such as should/should not or do/do not.

In reply to Jim 1003:

And had it been a horse? Or any other slow moving vehicle slightly wider than a bicycle's width? If a dog runs into a carriage way, and you're only other option is to potentially kill a cyclist, you hit the dog.

In reply to FreshSlate:

Rule 66

You should

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

not ride close behind another vehicle (cyclists on club runs think this means ride so close to the cyclist in front their wheels are almost touching)

Wording of The Highway Code (Pasted from the Highway Code) :

Many of the rules in the Code are legal requirements, and if you disobey these rules you are committing a criminal offence. You may be fined, given penalty points on your licence or be disqualified from driving. In the most serious cases you may be sent to prison. Such rules are identified by the use of the words MUST/MUST NOT. In addition, the rule includes an abbreviated reference to the legislation which creates the offence. See an explanation of the abbreviations.

Although failure to comply with the other rules of the Code will not, in itself, cause a person to be prosecuted, The Highway Code may be used in evidence in any court proceedings under the Traffic Acts (see The road user and the law) to establish liability. This includes rules which use advisory wording such as should/should not or do/do not.

In reply to Jim 1003:

Did you mean to copy and paste all that again?

In reply to FreshSlate:

He's got to that boring stage of the argument where got his cyber fingers in his ears and he's shouting 'na na na, can't here you'.

Basically he's saying that anyone doing a dangerous manoeuvre and cocking it up can apportion blame for their actions to anyone not obeying part of the 'suggested' sections of the Highway Code. Even though that's mental.
What company do you work for jim? Just so I make sure to never use them.

In reply to La benya:




^ Can you just clarify that you think it is okay for car drivers and cyclists to all ignore the Highway code, or which bits you think it is okay to ignore. Or are you saying only experienced cyclists like you can ignore it?

In reply to Lightweight:
Cyclists riding two a breast travel at about the same speed, and take up about the same amount of space, as a milk float. If you are prepared to drive behind the latter without honking or otherwise demonstrating your frustration, you should also be prepared to do so for the former. Over the next few years we will see more cyclists on the roads not fewer. Also, all cars will be electric and driverless by 2050. Get the fuck over it. The good guys are going to win on this one.

In reply to Jim 1003:


Fine.


Yes, because bellends like you try to victim blame to evade your clients' liabilities.

It's quite simple: ask yourself if you would apportion blame to a car in the place of one or more cyclists. If you would not, then do not apportion blame to the cyclists for being on the road, using the same space that a car would use.

The advisory wording is there to suggest mitigating behaviour to try to counter those who violate the law (defined in the HWC as MUST/MUST NOT).

Those breaking the law are responsible for RTCs.

In reply to Jim 1003:

If it's really a selfish, negligent, dangerous thing to do 100% of the time, any thoughts on why the Highway Code doesn't just say 'Don't ride two abreast', instead of 'Don't ride more than two abreast'?

In reply to Jim 1003:


'Not cause a person to be prosecuted', 'may', 'liability'.

In reply to Jim 1003:

Jim, if you quote someone you dont need to signal that you are replying to it by putting an arrow.

Taking the advisory parts of the Highway Code as advisory is hardly ignoring it is it? The person performing the dangerous manoeuvre would be however.
I also never said I was a cyclist, let alone experienced, but thank you.

Anyway Jim, I've drawn a blank, I can't find the case law that sets the precedent you are suggesting. Please help!

In reply to La benya:

Rule 66

You should

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

not ride close behind another vehicle (cyclists on club runs think this means ride so close to the cyclist in front their wheels are almost touching)

Wording of The Highway Code (Pasted from the Highway Code) :

Many of the rules in the Code are legal requirements, and if you disobey these rules you are committing a criminal offence. You may be fined, given penalty points on your licence or be disqualified from driving. In the most serious cases you may be sent to prison. Such rules are identified by the use of the words MUST/MUST NOT. In addition, the rule includes an abbreviated reference to the legislation which creates the offence. See an explanation of the abbreviations.

Although failure to comply with the other rules of the Code will not, in itself, cause a person to be prosecuted, The Highway Code may be used in evidence in any court proceedings under the Traffic Acts (see The road user and the law) to establish liability. This includes rules which use advisory wording such as should/should not or do/do not.

In reply to Jim 1003:

So you're talking out your bum then? Great. Glad we cleared that up!

In reply to Jim 1003:
Jim. I sincerely hope that in that case the dog owner was found to be liable and that the cyclist would have been found to be contributory negligent by a very small amount.

I really hope the cyclist wasn't found 100% to blame for the accident.

In this situation the cyclist should have been making their own descisions based on road conditions and advice in the Highway Code. Accidents do happen but if the motorist had hit one cyclist riding in the primary position, or a stationary car, who would have been to blame? Not the cyclist or the stopped car surely.

Can you clarify?

.

In reply to Jim 1003:

You already posted that yesterday.

In reply to DancingOnRock:


I think the bots copy and paste script is broken.

In reply to PM:

^ It doesn't just say that, this is what it says,

Rule 66

You should

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

not ride close behind another vehicle (cyclists on club runs think this means ride so close to the cyclist in front their wheels are almost touching)

Wording of The Highway Code (Pasted from the Highway Code) :

Many of the rules in the Code are legal requirements, and if you disobey these rules you are committing a criminal offence. You may be fined, given penalty points on your licence or be disqualified from driving. In the most serious cases you may be sent to prison. Such rules are identified by the use of the words MUST/MUST NOT. In addition, the rule includes an abbreviated reference to the legislation which creates the offence. See an explanation of the abbreviations.

Although failure to comply with the other rules of the Code will not, in itself, cause a person to be prosecuted, The Highway Code may be used in evidence in any court proceedings under the Traffic Acts (see The road user and the law) to establish liability. This includes rules which use advisory wording such as should/should not or do/do not.

In reply to KevinD:


You're not wrong.

In reply to DancingOnRock:


It is rather odd. They seem completely incapable of reasoned discussion.

In reply to Lightweight:

Frankly, I can't believe that this thread is still going and bulging with nonsense.


So, eight of us went out on Sunday morning - 40 miles at 20mph average. 2 abreast for nearly all it. We singled up for a stretch along the main road - frankly we'd have been better off 2 abreast as we were too long to pass, but someone thought it was a good idea and we ended up committed until we turned off.

We had no problems for any of the rest of it where we were two abreast (rotating chain). We were, shock horror, all inches away from the bike in front - that's how it works. We were a tidy, compact group, bowling along on country lanes mostly at 22-25 mph, which is faster (and narrower) than a tractor. No-one took exception, no-one was 'delayed' and everyone was happy.

Almost. At one point there were some cars parked on the other side of the road. We were going through when a car decided to force its way through from the other direction, and then swerved even more towards us and forced several of us off the road. That is just outright aggression - no excuse, no justification - inexcusable, and inches away from 12 years for causing death by dangerous driving. Or a £250 fine and 3 points depending on your viewpoint these days.

I gave Jim 1033 some slack a few days ago beacause it seems he has seen a few incidents. However, it is abundantly clear that he knows 4/5 of f*** all about cycling, and isn't prepared to listen, learn or understand from others. FWIW, I've done 6,000 miles on a bike this year and 8,000 in a car. I also live next to Southern England's cycling honey pot, which gives me a perspective on all sorts of cyclists and motorists.

That's close enough to a balanced perspective.

And root cause analysis doesn't start with an apparent cause (two cyclists in a tunnel) it starts way before that, with the training and experience of the cyclists and the training and experience of the motorist and the motorcyclist, before examining their conduct and the other factors.


My ride to work this morning? The only incident was a zombie pedestrian who stepped straight out into the bike lane without looking - very close indeed....

In reply to nniff:

Almost. At one point there were some cars parked on the other side of the road. We were going through when a car decided to force its way through from the other direction, and then swerved even more towards us and forced several of us off the road. That is just outright aggression - no excuse, no justification - inexcusable, and inches away from 12 years for causing death by dangerous driving. Or a £250 fine and 3 points depending on your viewpoint these days.

^Car driver at fault, but obviously you would be safer in this situation in single file, but you will never get it, will you. As long as you can be 2 abreast you will die happy.

In reply to Jim 1003:

no you wouldn`t . in bikeability you are taught to fill the space between the car and the curb on your side if the car is parked on the other side . normally in primary position . but riding 2 abreast is better . less chance of traffic trying to force it`s way through .

In reply to Jim 1003:



I'm a little disheartened here by my inability to pose my question in a way that's understood. I agree 100% that what you posted is exactly what it says. In the context of what I was wondering, the difference in meaning between my wording (don't) and the wording (should never) is moot. I possibly shouldn't have responded to you directly, as the question wasn't aimed at you specifically.

I've read the highway code and understood the difference between the MUST, never, don't etc. therein, even before its restatement 14 times in this thread. I'm a big fan of the highway code, much like this young lady is a big fan of the dictionary - https://youtu.be/eEXdn3evYis?t=28s

What I was wondering, is why it doesn't just say: 'Always ride single-file, never two-abreast', without any of the except-, if-, when-, elves-, but-, Wednesday-, corner-, narrow-, bits. My thought here is that if there weren't occasions where it was at times a preferable, or even possibly safer way to ride, it'd probably just say don't do it.

(There's a distinction here between riding two-abreast and overtaking obviously.)

In reply to Lightweight:


D'oh! : )

In reply to Jim 1003:

Thing is, you see, we all got into single file really quickly when it became apparent what he was doing, and then variously hit the brakes when he swerved towards us and crashed off the road because there wasn't room even for a single cyclist. He did that when the other side of the road ahead was filled with cyclists. He would have given even less thought had we been in single file.

But what you utterly fail to grasp, is that the position of a cyclist on the road will affect the behaviour of a driver. If you can influence the behaviour of a driver then your safety will increase.

Asserting that we would be safer in a given situation in a single file utterly disregards the higher number of incidents that would otherwise have arisen as a result of being in single file.

Our risk assessment (yes, I did actually do one mentally, looking at the size and composition of the group, the intended pace and the route) indicated two-up pretty much the whole way.

In my experience, you will have more near misses as a singleton than you will in pairs, because riding two abreast modifies driver behaviour - it may antagonise them because their 100+ horse power-propelled journey has been impeded to a fractional extent, but guess what, you have modified their behaviour and they are now waiting behind you instead of lunging past.

I see this umpteen times a day, day in day out. If I cycle close to the kerb, cars will try and force their way through. If I do not take primary position when there is a line of traffic coming the other way, they will try and force their way past. if I fail to take primary position at a traffic island they will force their way past. If I pull over to the right to turn right (as your beloved f******** Highway Code advises), they will try to squeeze past to the left - and given that the slightest nudge from a wing mirror will tip me over into the incoming traffic, I don't do that. You'll find me blocking the road for as long as it takes. They'll wait for a car turning right, so they can bloody well wait for me too.

Drivers seem to attribute greater value to £200 of wing mirror or tyre than they do to a £2million liability for a cyclist and years in jail. Heaven forbid that they might bang wing mirrors with a car coming the other way - better squeeze up on that cyclist. Day in, day out, every day. Even in Richmond Park - 20 mph limit and still you get squeezed out - in a sodding park. In single file, on your own.

Anyway, wish me luck - I'm off into 15 miles of London traffic now - two flashing lights on the front, two flashing lights and a video on the back, flashing reflectors on each wrist, flashing light on rear of helmet, reflective tabbard. I'll be in single file on my own and, when I think it's appropriate, taking as much room as I bloody well can - 'You shall not pass here'. Won't stop some see you next tuesday from trying though.

And I do drive - a sodding great rocket ship of a car. You know what, if I ease off for a cyclist, or two, or eight, all I have to do is waggle my right foot and I'm past. No drama, no upset, no delay.

All the way home tonight I'm going to be held up by cars and my average speed will be higher than theirs. The drivers will be using Public Rights of Way under licence, licences which may be taken away if the standard of their driving fails to meet the required standard. But they'll break the 30mph limit, jump the lights, stop in the ASL, they'll talk on their phones, they'll fail to give cyclist adequate room and 7.2% of them will be untaxed, 10% uninsured and 5% without an MOT.

So please drop all mention of the Highway Code until that lot's fixed.

In reply to DancingOnRock:


In that example, I would prefer it if the driver chose to hit the dog rather than the cyclist*, since I value human life above that of a dog, but I wouldn't put much blame on the driver for the split-second reaction; it's an incident that cannot easily be expected. I wouldn't blame the cyclist for getting hit, though.

* A couple of years ago, cycling home, I saw a dog run out in front of a house right into the path of a car. Fortunately, it bounced off the wing and no other vehicles were involved. I stopped and offered to act as a witness for the driver, and I told him quite firmly that he was entirely blameless, as he had no time to react at all.

In reply to tim000:

Here's some light reading for our friend:

https://bikeability.org.uk/

In reply to Jim 1003:


Can you explain in what way being in single file is safer in the event that a car swerves towards you?

In reply to nniff:











I do sympathise with you re car drivers, however this idea that you can control drivers is naive. In another life, as a young man I drove vehicles of all types with blue lights, sirens, and flashing headlights. Despite that, some drivers took no notice, you've no chance on a bike. Cycle defensively, the best place you can be on a road is as far as away as possible from other drivers, dare I say it, especially on narrow roads, busy roads and around bends.....as per Rule 66.....

In reply to Jim 1003:

*Facepalm* you didn't really register what he said did you?

In reply to Jim 1003:

Cycle defensively, the best place you can be on a road is as far as away as possible from other drivers, dare I say it, especially on narrow roads, busy roads and around bends.....as per Rule 66.....

which part of rule 66 recommends you stay as far away as possible from other drivers?

In reply to PM:

Lightweight: I don't want to start a polarised row of the kind that seem to dominate on this topic.


He's been on UKC since 2004, you'd think he'd know by now!

In reply to captain paranoia:

Of particular mention in the Bikeability training manuals is the Level 2 manual; it has instruction and rationales for things such as overtaking parked cars, turning right into a side road, turning left and right from a side road, etc. It even has pretty pictures.

Some more light reading:

http://www.cyclecraft.co.uk

Brought to you by the same people who brought you 'Roadcraft', the manual used to train Police drivers.

http://www.roadcraft.co.uk

In reply to All:

<So please drop all mention of the Highway Code until that lot's fixed.>

Thoroughly depressing thread I'm afraid to say. Professional interpretation of some laws and guidance vs. experiential interpretation of the situation on the road and whether they are appropriate.

No matter how passionate you feel, some of the jibes and insults thrown back and forth are utterly silly and unnecessary. In my view they prevent reasonable debate.

I was thinking about this as I ran today - 10 miles, of which about 8.5 was out on country lanes. The varying treatment I got from drivers reminded me of this post and I used it as a distraction as I plodded around.

It struck me that there does seem to be a passionate belief that cyclists need more protection under the law and that the Highway Code is not explicit enough. I can certainly say as a runner that I would like to be afforded the same protection that cyclists are looking for as I am particularly vulnerable.

Given the depth of passion and the fact that it is something of interest to many groups of road users, and also given that it won't be resolved here on UKC, why hasn't a petition on Gov.uk been started, or if it has why hasn't it gained momentum?

Surely something demanding a statutory requirement about passing distances or passing discipline should be laid out as mandated law rather than the confusing "must" vs. "should"?

As someone who tries hard to respect cyclists and give them the right time and distance I can't see how this would affect me, but if the laws were changed to mandate the passing discipline with points/fines it might help push more drivers down the right path?

Surely better than bickering on UKC, and there must be thousands of cyclists just waiting to support such a petition? (a few runners too).

In reply to Rampikino:


You do realise people have repeatedly been saying what the actual experts say on the subject?
What I find fascinating is when people go on about cycling safety and show themselves absolutely clueless about the basic texts on the subject.

In reply to KevinD:

Yes, hence the thread has become a depressingly polarised scrap.

None of this advice or guidance one way or the other has actually helped to change the law though, has it? It's all still ambiguous and open to interpretation and argument.

So surely it needs a push to get it made into effective legislation?

In reply to KevinD:


You being the best example I've seen on that in 35 years.

In reply to Rampikino:

What it needs is for the existing laws to be properly enforced.
What it needs is for driving bans to to mean actual bans.
What it needs is an end to the 'I need a driving licence for my job' excuse that sees 8000+ people with more than 30 points still allowed to drive.
What it needs is an end to the "you're partly to blame because you were on the road" merchants.
What it needs is a public information campaign to change public opinion. And not one that victim blames like the recent one featuring a truck overtaking a cyclist and then turning left across them aimed at cyclists telling them not to let this happen. Maybe start by showing the cab footage of the truck driver who wiped out a family because he was selecting music on his phone for fifty seconds, just an hour after signing an agreement with his employer that he would not use his phone whilst driving his truck. Maybe one aimed at Deliveroo cycle deliverers, or anyone cycling at night in drab clothing and no lights, saying "get some proper bike lights, you idiots".

In reply to Jim 1003:

Have you read the Bikeability manuals yet?

In reply to Rampikino:


People have tried engaging but it has quickly become clear that those who are anti cyclists have no real interest in cycling safety. Otherwise they would be pushing bikeability/cyclecraft etc as opposed to spewing absolute shite on the subject.


Not really no. Since that assumes effective enforcement. After all there are several cases where cyclists (amazingly enough not two abreast) have been killed by some idiot blinded by the sun who decided to keep driving but got let off.

In reply to captain paranoia:


Its not much better but the 8000 figure are those with 12 points or more. Not sure there is an exact figure for the more than 30 points idiots. Just reported the number is, unsurprisingly, increasing.


Deliveroo etc should be hit with a big f*cking h&s stick to ensure their workers are properly protected.

In reply to KevinD:


Who do you think is anticyclist ? I'm a cyclist, but I really don't agree with the mantra trotted out by over aggressive club riders that two abreast is somehow safer. Bollocks. You can stop someone overtaking if you are in single file just by taking the right line but, and here is the big but, if you are single file you still have room to manouvre on your inside if someone does come towards you.

Its not a safety thing, its a pack mentality. Some people need to remember that they are not the spokespeople for all, or even the majority, of cyclists who are actually happy to share the road.

In reply to GrahamD:

FFS. Do yourself a favour and read the bikeability and cyclecraft materials.
Then you might stop confusing "over aggressive club cyclists" with people advocating safe riding techniques.
by the by. I aint a club cyclist. Prefer mountain biking alone or in small groups and when i do road stuff (normally when the trails are too wet to ride without trashing them) do that the same way.

In reply to Jim 1003:


And there's the rub. There are some people in cars who should not be there - temperamentallly unsuited to driving (permanently or temporarily), day dreaming, whatever. And no, in an absolute sense you cannot stop them doing what they are doing. However, cycling defensively really does not mean getting as far away as you can from the traffic, because you can't - the traffic is dynamic and will take the same tarmac as you. Cycling defensively means not putting yourself in a position where you are likely to be mullered by a car. If you ride close to the kerb, the probability of mishap increases, because drivers think that they can squeeze past - and they do - day in, day out. If you cycle further out, two things happen - firstly it is less likely that they think that they can squeeze past, and secondly, the second car behind you gets slowed by the first car behind you, and sees it manoevre past. If the first car can squeeze past it is likely that the second will too, but it is also more likely that the second car has not seen you, even if they're paying attention.

I suppose the acid test is what happens when I don't take all the room that I really know I should, beacuse the outcome is so predictable - i will get squeezed out about 7 times out of 10, to the extent that I'll give a thumbs up to those who don't lunge for the gap.

You may not make any sort of contact with the overtly dangerous, aggressive and reckless, or those who are busy texting - those are the ones who go to jail for casuing death by dangerous driving (or get 3 points and £250 fine). All you can hope is that that group don't close down all of your options. For the rest, however, one can only do one's best.

In reply to KevinD:

FFS try to address the issue being discussed, which is two abreast cycling and its perceived safety benefit.

In reply to GrahamD:


You dont think that those will have some expert opinion on the matter?

In reply to KevinD:

What is your opinion, and why ?

In reply to GrahamD:

http://www.cyclingweekly.co.uk/news/latest-news/chris-boardman-explains-why...

This seems to be a reasonable argument.

This is also a useful video:

http://www.cyclingweekly.co.uk/news/latest-news/watch-chris-boardman-explai...

I'm not a member of any bike club. I don't cycle on the roads as a leisure activity. I have cycled to school, college and work and back every day for the last 42 years. I don't ride two abreast, because I ride solo. I have developed my own defensive riding style over those 42 years, which turns out to be practically identical to the best practice recommended by the likes of Cyclecraft and Bikeability.

I am happy to share to road, provided others are prepared to share to road with me.

In reply to GrahamD:


Have you read those documents yet? Might as well stick with the experts view dont you think? See whether it matches those over aggressive club riders or not?

In reply to KevinD:

There is no evidence that they are experts. Certainly not universally acclaimed as such. Anyway, what is your analysis or are you abdicating any personal thinking to a random book ?

In reply to GrahamD:


You really are scraping the barrel now. Govian in your responces.

In reply to GrahamD:

The random book is an official government publication and endorsed by DfT, RoSPA and CTC.

In reply to GrahamD:


Whilst I often have a low opinion of government I would suggest that being selected to write the approved cycle skills book and also the training syllabuses for the official courses might count as evidence they are an expert.


Feel free to find those other cycling specialists who disagree. That is on anything other than attitudes to cyclepaths.


You seem rather keen to talk about expert opinions earlier. Which is why I brought it up and am staying with that line.
After all I dont want to be accused of being arrogant for disregarding their advice.

In reply to The New NickB:

Govian ? you'll have to explain what that is supposed to mean when pursuing a straight answer to a straight question

In reply to KevinD:

Well the official government guidelines is in the highway code which some people think is selectively ignorable. So rather than debate whether the highway code really applies to cycling groups, I was asking your view on cycling two abreast and in what situations do you think its safer than single file with riders in a primary position ? Just play the ball, not the man.

In reply to The New NickB:


As is the highway code, but more so. But the highway code seems too difficult for some people.

In reply to GrahamD:


Quite. The HWC has legal status. The other books don't. If there is a mismatch between the two, as there seems to be, one should change. In the meantime, the HWC and the law are what is is important. Ignoring the bits you don't like isn't the way forward.

In reply to GrahamD:


ermmm Just play the ball, not the man.
I love consistency.