# Moaning about cycling two abreast



## Accy cyclist (16 Dec 2015)

Listening to the local radio phone in tonight, a few bikes in cycle lanes and riding two abreast calls were made.One cretin was told by the show presenter that cyclists could be killed in certain situations to which he cheered. Then we had some old duffer moaning about riding two abreast. He kept saying "I'm not too certain but i'm sure it's illegal" which had me shouting at the radio that it isn't you thick ~@#t! A woman came on defending cyclists saying they can't use the cycle lanes in her part of the world as they're full of rubbish, to which someone phoned in and replied that all cyclists are rubbish so that's where they belong.
I went on my group ride today. We rode side by side quite a bit, but when a car approaches from behind it's "car up"! and we go into single file. Most motorists sit back patiently but there's always the one! Today Mr(or Mrs)Scumbag in their 4x4 buzzed us then slammed on their brakes, then started swaying from side to side in front of us. What is wrong with these people? Are they thick or just evil gits?


----------



## snorri (16 Dec 2015)

Radio 'phone in programmes may provide a degree of background entertainment, but if you have any knowledge of the topic being discussed they will have a negative effect on your blood pressure. You could call in yourself and attempt to put the record straight, but would you really want to be associated with the ill informed clowns already contributing?
My advice would be to switch off or change programme.


----------



## steve50 (17 Dec 2015)

They are quite simply ignorant....................ignorant of the laws of the road.............ignorant of the fact that we are human beings, flesh and blood riding a bike, that we can be hurt very easily by a vehicle driven by a bloody minded moron. The chances are they will never have ridden or enjoyed a bike ride in the countryside so they will have no perception of how a cyclist can share a (their) public road. On your ride today did anyone have a camera running, did they get any footage of above mentioned chelsea tractor driver behaving in such a moronic manner. If so report them to the old bill.
In answer to the question of whether they are thick or evil i would suggest it is more a case of they feel so secure in their metal box they quite simply let common sense go out of the window, i am willing to bet that if they had to stop and get out of their vehicle and be confronted by a group of cyclists that they had just been harassing they would probably be very humble and apologetic.


----------



## Accy cyclist (17 Dec 2015)

snorri said:


> Radio 'phone in programmes may provide a degree of background entertainment, but if you have any knowledge of the topic being discussed they will have a negative effect on your blood pressure. You could call in yourself and attempt to put the record straight, but would you really want to be associated with the ill informed clowns already contributing?
> My advice would be to switch off or change programme.



I usually turn the programme off when something comes on that pees me off, then turn it back on 5 minutes later, but every time i turned it back on an anti cyclist rant was taking place,


----------



## Accy cyclist (17 Dec 2015)

steve50 said:


> They are quite simply ignorant....................ignorant of the laws of the road.............ignorant of the fact that we are human beings, flesh and blood riding a bike that can be hurt very easily by a vehicle driven by a bloody minded moron. The chances are they will never have ridden or enjoyed a bike ride in the countryside so they will have no perception of how a cyclist can share a (their) public road. On your ride today did anyone have a camera running, did they get any footage of above mentioned chelsea tractor driver behaving in such a moronic manner. If so report them to the old bill.



No head cams,the group is very non confrontational, they tend to keep their heads down and accept the abuse. I'm the only one that swears and gives it back,


----------



## kiriyama (17 Dec 2015)

Amazing how much abuse you get when riding 2 abreast, makes you wonder how many more rules these angry drivers dont understand. 

Smile and wave.... only way to win these confrontations. In my experience they don't know what to do with it and just drive away swearing and cross and you can carry on enjoying your ride without raising your own blood pressure. Don't let them ruin your ride.


----------



## flake99please (17 Dec 2015)

snorri said:


> You could call in yourself and attempt to put the record straight, but would you really want to be associated with the ill informed clowns already contributing?



I was told to never argue with an idiot. They would always bring you down to their level, and beat you with their experience.


----------



## classic33 (17 Dec 2015)

flake99please said:


> I was told to never argue with an idiot. They would always bring you down to their level, and beat you with their experience.


Along these lines?


----------



## Dogtrousers (17 Dec 2015)

snorri said:


> Radio 'phone in programmes may provide a degree of background entertainment, but if you have any knowledge of the topic being discussed they will have a negative effect on your blood pressure.


This.

Do not listen to them. They are cretin magnets.


----------



## benb (17 Dec 2015)

If they gave it a moment's thought they'd realise that in group situations, it's often easier to overtake cyclists 2 or more abreast, as there's less linear room to navigate.


----------



## mjr (17 Dec 2015)

Where's that diagram from @benb and can it be reused widely?


----------



## moo (17 Dec 2015)

Riding two abreast forces motorists to cross the dividing line and take responsibility for their own safety too. We can't have that. Best to ride single file so they can squeeze past within the white line while using their mobile, completely oblivious to other road users.


----------



## Dogtrousers (17 Dec 2015)

My favourite was recently being beeped and gesticulated at by the driver of an _*oncoming*_ car because we were riding two abreast. He wanted to come into our lane to overtake a small farm vehicle thing (maybe a quad bike, I forget). And, of all the cheek, we were actually using our lane, which meant he had to wait all of 10 seconds before furiously performing his overtaking manoeuvre. (Long, straight, relatively wide, minor road btw)


----------



## Accy cyclist (17 Dec 2015)

I'll hold my hand up and say i was wrong. I've seen quite a few vehicles cross double white lines to overtake our group when we've been riding two abreast. I thought they were breaking the law but they aren't.



*CROSSING DOUBLE WHITE LINES*
It is illegal to cross a continuous solid white line if the solid line is on your side of the road, except under certain conditions. You are permitted to straddle or cross a continuous solid white line to enter a side road or property, to manoeuvre round a stationary vehicle blocking your side of the road, to overtake a cyclists, horse or a road works vehicle moving at 10 mph (16 km/h) or less. Crossing double white lines where the line closest to you is solid is illegal outside of the circumstances described above.



Yet they put approaching vehicles and us at risk by doing so. An irate motorist loosing his temper after being "stuck behind" cyclists for a while is allowed to lose his rag and go onto the other side of the road, even on an un sighted(blind)bend as happened yesterday!


----------



## Milkfloat (17 Dec 2015)

Accy cyclist said:


> I'll hold my hand up and say i was wrong. I've seen quite a few vehicles cross double white lines to overtake our group when we've been riding two abreast. I thought they were breaking the law but they aren't.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



10 mph is pretty slow though.


----------



## Accy cyclist (17 Dec 2015)

Milkfloat said:


> 10 mph is pretty slow though.



I agree, but one yesterday was a very big 4x4 with a big trailer. He could've waited till the road was straight but he overtook us by crossing the double white lines on a left hand bend He must've been on the right side of the road for 7 or 8 dangerous seconds.


----------



## Milkfloat (17 Dec 2015)

Accy cyclist said:


> I agree, but one yesterday was a very big 4x4 with a big trailer. He could've waited till the road was straight but he overtook us by crossing the double white lines on a left hand bend He must've been on the right side of the road for 7 or 8 dangerous seconds.



At least if something came the other way he could pull to the left and not damage his vehicle in a head on.


----------



## benb (17 Dec 2015)

mjray said:


> Where's that diagram from @benb and can it be reused widely?



I just googled "easier to overtake cyclists 2 abreast" went to images, and it was on the first page.
Page it came from is: https://twitter.com/forestcyclist/status/480778771692535808
I'm sure he won't mind you reusing it, but drop him a message.


----------



## andyfraser (17 Dec 2015)

I witnessed an accident this morning. Large roundabout, 3 lanes: turn left, straight on and turn right. First car in left lane waits for 2 people they'd called out to to get in the car. Car behind edges forward a little then stops. First car starts to pull forward to see around a bus at the front of the straight across lane. Second car accelerates right into the back of the first car as if it wasn't there and as if the roundabout was clear but the second car couldn't see the traffic on the roundabout because of the bus.

Talking of buses, some of them have a notice on the right hand side: "Please let me pull out" and reference to highway code rule 223:
*Rule 223*
*Buses, coaches and trams.* Give priority to these vehicles when you can do so safely, especially when they signal to pull away from stops. Look out for people getting off a bus or tram and crossing the road.

I've been using the buses a lot lately because of a bad back. I know rule 223 isn't a "must" but the amount of people who have to get in front of the bus before it pulls out of the bus stop (off road lay by type) is amazing. I've been on buses that have had to wait 5 minutes to pull out on busy roads.

Where the bus stop is actually on the road it amazes me how many drivers will take chances and just go round the bus, often stopping traffic coming in the other direction. They even overtake once the bus has started moving causing the bus to slow down or stop just so they're in front.

There are too many motor vehicles on the road driven by too many people who are impatient and who have forgotten the highway code and too few measures to police the roads.


----------



## Hip Priest (17 Dec 2015)

Dogtrousers said:


> My favourite was recently being beeped and gesticulated at by the driver of an _*oncoming*_ car because we were riding two abreast. He wanted to come into our lane to overtake a small farm vehicle thing (maybe a quad bike, I forget). And, of all the cheek, we were actually using our lane, which meant he had to wait all of 10 seconds before furiously performing his overtaking manoeuvre. (Long, straight, relatively wide, minor road btw)



Happened to me on a time trial last year. I was passing a cyclist in my lane, and there was a car parked in the opposite lane. A 4x4 driver coming the other way had to slow down slightly as a result, and let rip a volley of abuse in my direction. Tit.


----------



## mjr (17 Dec 2015)

andyfraser said:


> There are too many motor vehicles on the road driven by too many people who are impatient and who have forgotten the highway code and too few measures to police the roads.


You're very charitable. I doubt many of them ever knew the highway code and passed the HC questions of the old driving test by hearsay and dumb luck - and that's ignoring the 3% or so of motorists without valid licences. Expecting them to know recent changes to the HC (such as flashing bike lights, which many motorists whine about being illegal) would be fantasy at best.


----------



## Milkfloat (17 Dec 2015)

andyfraser said:


> I've been using the buses a lot lately because of a bad back. I know rule 223 isn't a "must" but the amount of people who have to get in front of the bus before it pulls out of the bus stop (off road lay by type) is amazing. I've been on buses that have had to wait 5 minutes to pull out on busy roads.



Conversely near me a large number of busses will go straight from indicating left whilst picking up passengers to, indicating right and accelerating with barely a glance in the mirror. Certainly when passing a bus that is parked up I am incredibly wary in case they just decide to go.


----------



## andyfraser (17 Dec 2015)

mjray said:


> You're very charitable. I doubt many of them ever knew the highway code and passed the HC questions of the old driving test by hearsay and dumb luck - and that's ignoring the 3% or so of motorists without valid licences. Expecting them to know recent changes to the HC (such as flashing bike lights, which many motorists whine about being illegal) would be fantasy at best.


You're right. I'm actually starting to think that there should be more of those cameras that can catch unlicensed and uninsured drivers. Then they can invent a camera that can catch morons!


----------



## andyfraser (17 Dec 2015)

Milkfloat said:


> Conversely near me a large number of busses will go straight from indicating left whilst picking up passengers to, indicating right and accelerating with barely a glance in the mirror. Certainly when passing a bus that is parked up I am incredibly wary in case they just decide to go.


I see that too, especially if a bus is running late. In those cases the driver seems to think he or she is Lewis Hamilton. Mostly the bus drivers here will edge forward when trying to get out of bus stops.


----------



## andyoxon (17 Dec 2015)

This is good...


View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OTGRQgw6PDA


----------



## winjim (17 Dec 2015)

mjray said:


> Where's that diagram from @benb and can it be reused widely?


I assume you've seen this one?






http://ukcyclelaws.blogspot.co.uk/p/the-laws-according-to-highway-code.html?m=1

It gets used a lot, but the blog it's from never seemed to get updated after the first couple of articles.


----------



## RMurphy195 (17 Dec 2015)

flake99please said:


> I was told to never argue with an idiot. They would always bring you down to their level, and beat you with their experience.



Just remember - if having an argument with a fool, make sure he isn't doing the same thing ...


----------



## User16625 (19 Dec 2015)

kiriyama said:


> Amazing how much abuse you get when riding 2 abreast, makes you wonder how many more rules these angry drivers dont understand.
> 
> Smile and wave.... only way to win these confrontations. In my experience they don't know what to do with it and just drive away swearing and cross and you can carry on enjoying your ride without raising your own blood pressure. Don't let them ruin your ride.




Or apply a bit of common sense, pull into single file and let the son of a bitch speed off. This is better for the driver because he is no longer being held up. This is better for you because you no longer have an irate idiot in control of a ton or more of metal behind you. This is also better for cyclists in general because failing to yield when ever reasonable may make drivers even more antagonistic towards us.


----------



## winjim (19 Dec 2015)

RideLikeTheStig said:


> Or apply a bit of common sense, pull into single file and let the son of a bitch speed off. This is better for the driver because he is no longer being held up. This is better for you because you no longer have an irate idiot in control of a ton or more of metal behind you. This is also better for cyclists in general because failing to yield when ever reasonable may make drivers even more antagonistic towards us.


----------



## sidevalve (19 Dec 2015)

mjray said:


> You're very charitable. I doubt many of them ever knew the highway code and passed the HC questions of the old driving test by hearsay and dumb luck - and that's ignoring the 3% or so of motorists without valid licences. Expecting them to know recent changes to the HC (such as flashing bike lights, which many motorists whine about being illegal) would be fantasy at best.


Well it's about 100% more of them that the number of cyclists who have had to pass ANY sort of test.


andyfraser said:


> Mostly the bus drivers here will edge forward when trying to get out of bus stops.


Seen a lot of cyclists doing similar things at junctions too.


RideLikeTheStig said:


> Or apply a bit of common sense, pull into single file and let the son of a bitch speed off.


Most sensible comment here.
Just wondering why do cyclists need to ride two abreast anyhow ? 
Just a question [which many won't like] but if a large tractor got in your way and sat at a quite legal 4mph and and you couldn't get around be honest how many here would simply be happy to follow for maybe a mile or two and not get just a leetle impatient ?
Follow the highway code [oddly it applies to cyclists too]and NOT ride more than two abreast AND ride in singe file on narrow or busy roads.
Sorry but don't cry about the other guy not following the rules if you don't yourself.


----------



## screenman (19 Dec 2015)

andyfraser said:


> You're right. I'm actually starting to think that there should be more of those cameras that can catch unlicensed and uninsured drivers. Then they can invent a camera that can catch morons!



Once they have the pictures who do they send the fine too, the majority of untaxed uninsured are also unregistered, unfortunately.


----------



## mjr (19 Dec 2015)

sidevalve said:


> Well it's about 100% more of them that the number of cyclists who have had to pass ANY sort of test.


Zero cyclists have HAD to pass a test. 100% of zero is zero. So you think zero non-cyclist drivers know the Highway Code? 

Oh and I tootle along behind tractors without complaint. They grow our food and we'll soon part ways or reach a bigger road.


----------



## oldstrath (19 Dec 2015)

sidevalve said:


> Well it's about 100% more of them that the number of cyclists who have had to pass ANY sort of test.
> 
> Seen a lot of cyclists doing similar things at junctions too.
> 
> ...


Sometimes riding two abreast is entirely sensible on narrow roads, to persuade impatients to wait until it is actually safe to overtake. And yes, I know you think that cyclists should just feck off out of the way of the truly important, but some of us are trying to get to work as well.


----------



## boydj (19 Dec 2015)

sidevalve said:


> Well it's about 100% more of them that the number of cyclists who have had to pass ANY sort of test.
> Just wondering why do cyclists need to ride two abreast anyhow ?


It was my understanding that adult cyclists have a higher ratio of car ownership than the population at large.

As for two-abreast - there are several reasons to do this for safety and being sociable when riding in even a small group. I don't understand the problem in moving wholly over the centre line to overtake a couple of cyclists, when a proper overtake of a single cyclist still means crossing the centre line.


----------



## steveindenmark (19 Dec 2015)

I understand why cyclists ride 2 abreast. But I have experienced them on my local country roads where they refuse to even move in to passing places to let vehicles pass. Unfortunately, some are inconsiderate to other road users.

If cyclists wont share the road, why should they expect motorists to do the same?


----------



## benb (19 Dec 2015)

I wonder why some people bother visiting this forum, when they would clearly be happier on Pistonheads!


----------



## steveindenmark (19 Dec 2015)

benb said:


> I wonder why some people bother visiting this forum, when they would clearly be happier on Pistonheads!



I dont know if you are referring to me but I ride more than drive. But I wont agree with something just because it relates to a bike, if I think it is wrong.


----------



## Glow worm (19 Dec 2015)

sidevalve said:


> Well it's about 100% more of them that the number of cyclists who have had to pass ANY sort of test.
> 
> Seen a lot of cyclists doing similar things at junctions too.
> 
> ...



What a load of patronising twaddle. Have you ever ridden a bicycle?


----------



## snorri (20 Dec 2015)

steveindenmark said:


> If cyclists wont share the road, why should they expect motorists to do the same?


I just don't understand this group guilt thing. You appear to wish the punishment for the failings of the few to fall on all cyclists, which sounds very unreasonable to me.
Cyclists will and do share the roads, why should they not expect other road users to do the same?


----------



## Milkfloat (20 Dec 2015)

benb said:


> I wonder why some people bother visiting this forum, when they would clearly be happier on Pistonheads!



Some people are on both.


----------



## Arrowfoot (20 Dec 2015)

As there are inconsiderate motorists, there are also inconsiderate. cyclists.The issue is not riding 2 abreast. Lots of cyclist know when to yield. Its the stubborn few that genuinely think that riding 2 abreast is a given right and there is nothing else to be done. I have seen tractors that have slowed down and yield when they realise that they can make difference. The argument that riding single file causes more delay than 2 abreast is an overused excuse. I have seen cycling groups break into smaller groups to provide gaps to allow vehicles thru in tight situations.


----------



## steveindenmark (20 Dec 2015)

snorri said:


> I just don't understand this group guilt thing. You appear to wish the punishment for the failings of the few to fall on all cyclists, which sounds very unreasonable to me.
> Cyclists will and do share the roads, why should they not expect other road users to do the same?



I share the road and cycle paths with all sorts. If I have to slow down a bit to let something come by I will. Its never a problem. But you get twonkers in all groups. The only time I ever see it with bikes, and it is only occasionally, is with peletons.


----------



## ufkacbln (20 Dec 2015)

MY brother is always on about how cyclists disregard the Highway Code and should be fined and banned for any misdemeanour

Yet when he got done for his SatNav being in the middle of the windscreen it was unfair because despite both the law and the Highway Code stating it was an obstruction and not allowed... that is silly and only been brought in to make it easier to victimise motorists

He is ver selective about which parts of the Highway Code are applicable to motorists, but absolutely unequivocal that there is no such allowance for cyclists



(Note:He was pulled over for speeding during a clamp down and had a go at the Officer for wasting his time..... 

They replied by ensuring they did their duty and made sure his car and him were safe...Number plates, tyres, lights, windscreen checks and breathalyser, he was there for about 40 minutes)


----------



## ufkacbln (20 Dec 2015)

Surely when riding behind another rider you should be slightly displaced so if they have a sudden stop you are in a position to avoid?

Straight lines are no good to anyone and unsafe


----------



## Sara_H (20 Dec 2015)

Hip Priest said:


> Happened to me on a time trial last year. I was passing a cyclist in my lane, and there was a car parked in the opposite lane. A 4x4 driver coming the other way had to slow down slightly as a result, and let rip a volley of abuse in my direction. Tit.


Some of my scariest near misses and scariest epidodes of being verbally abused by drivers have been incidents where the driver of an oncoming vehicle has come into my lane (usually to pass parked cars in their lane) and they've been very cross to find it already occupied.


----------



## glenn forger (20 Dec 2015)

Ive had a driver argue the toss as they scrape past me on the wrong side of the road "You had loads of room!"

Instead of driving at me on the wrong side of the road then argue the toss, just don't drive at me on the wrong side of the road.


----------



## ufkacbln (20 Dec 2015)

glenn forger said:


> Ive had a driver argue the toss as they scrape past me on the wrong side of the road "You had loads of room!"
> 
> Instead of driving at me on the wrong side of the road then argue the toss, just don't drive at me on the wrong side of the road.


Point out head cam 

"Fine, let the Police decide when they see the video, last time it ended up with a caution for the driver "

Then watch them change their tune


----------



## benb (21 Dec 2015)

steveindenmark said:


> I dont know if you are referring to me but I ride more than drive. But I wont agree with something just because it relates to a bike, if I think it is wrong.



No, it was sidevalve, although I disagree with your collective responsibility comment #38


----------



## Accy cyclist (21 Dec 2015)

I cycled down to my local pub last night. No sooner had i got through the door when some drunken gobby git started saying to his mate aloud "I tell you summat else that i hate about cyclists blah blah" and "they get me when they wont let you pass, so i drive straight at 'em". All for my benefit of course. Then he went back to laughing at crude images on his mobile....the dumbfeck!!


----------



## al78 (22 Dec 2015)

Accy cyclist said:


> I cycled down to my local pub last night. No sooner had i got through the door when some drunken gobby git started saying to his mate aloud "I tell you summat else that i hate about cyclists blah blah" and "they get me when they wont let you pass, so i drive straight at 'em". All for my benefit of course. Then he went back to laughing at crude images on his mobile....the dumbfeck!!



Pity you didn't punch him hard in the face.

I sometimes think that arrogant, thick gobshites should have significant amounts of pain inflicted on them for being dick heads, preferably enough pain that they can't sleep properly for at least two weeks because it is too painful to lie down. If that happened regularly enough it might result in an evolution away from crappy behaviour towards civilised behaviour, and the quality of life would improve greatly.


----------



## benb (22 Dec 2015)

al78 said:


> Pity you didn't punch him hard in the face.
> 
> I sometimes think that arrogant, thick gobshites should have significant amounts of pain inflicted on them for being dick heads, preferably enough pain that they can't sleep properly for at least two weeks because it is too painful to lie down. If that happened regularly enough it might result in an evolution away from crappy behaviour towards civilised behaviour, and the quality of life would improve greatly.



Punch people and inflict serious pain in order to get more civilised behaviour.
OK then.


----------



## User16625 (22 Dec 2015)

al78 said:


> Pity you didn't punch him hard in the face.
> 
> I sometimes think that arrogant, thick gobshites should have significant amounts of pain inflicted on them for being dick heads, preferably enough pain that they can't sleep properly for at least two weeks because it is too painful to lie down. If that happened regularly enough it might result in an evolution away from crappy behaviour towards civilised behaviour, and the quality of life would improve greatly.



This is actually one of the most sensible ideas I have heard in a long time. Unfortunately its one of those great ideas that will never be impemented.



benb said:


> Punch people and inflict serious pain in order to get more civilised behaviour.
> OK then.



Yes it is ironic, but sometimes you have to swim through a river of shoot to come out clean.


EDIT: Why was a word I quoted off someone else got through fine, but when I typed it, it got changed by the swear filter?!


----------



## glasgowcyclist (22 Dec 2015)

Accy cyclist said:


> I cycled down to my local pub last night. No sooner had i got through the door when some drunken gobby git started saying to his mate aloud "I tell you summat else that i hate about cyclists blah blah" and "they get me when they wont let you pass, so i drive straight at 'em". All for my benefit of course. Then he went back to laughing at crude images on his mobile....the dumbfeck!!



I bought one of these:





Puts a very confused face on those who'd normally be prone to criticising cyclists.

GC


----------



## nickyboy (22 Dec 2015)

This flares up every so often on CC. I really should let it pass me by but I just seem to be unable to resist giving my three penn'oth

1) Riders in Groups. Absolutely safer to ride two abreast than single file (unless there are big gaps, in which case it's not really a group). Public needs educating of this fact

2) Two riders. At a practical level, not safer to ride two abreast. Fine to do so for social reasons but singling out when there is a car up to maintain good relations with other road users. Reasoning is that singling out doesn't appreciably shorten the overtake distance with just two riders, unlike a big group. Furthermore, the argument that drivers "should" pass a singled out rider as wide as they would pass two riders riding two abreast just doesn't hold water. Reality is that no car drivers do this. Whether they should or shouldn't is moot, it's just never going to happen because it doesn't need to happen. You can pass a single cyclist without going as far over the middle line as you would with two abreast riders


----------



## confusedcyclist (22 Dec 2015)

People love an 'outside' group to rag on about. It's basic tribal mentality. Unfortunately it is impossible to get away from when holding discussions with ill-informed members of the public. Luckily for us this is just a chat show that joe public will not remember it in a few days time. Now, where that tribal mentality extends to government policy and spending our taxes on infrastructure, we have a serious issue.

Anger towards cyclists is usually because any challenge to motorised dominance is a challenge to an individuals way of life. If you dispute that motorised transportation isn't always the best, you challenge the fundamental belief that the motorist knows best. Any question otherwise suggests that there might be a better way of operating and they are not part of it. It's natural to reject other ways of life in favour of your own. This was an evolutionary advantage response, as changing habits and blaming outside forces helps keep humans on track and less likely to make changes which might compromise their security.

The only way to change someone's view point is to challenge their beliefs with rational arguments and hope they are in the frame of mind to consider real change.


----------



## Dogtrousers (22 Dec 2015)

Normally, when you hear people ranting, it's not normally two abreast. Exaggeration takes hold. "They were riding _*three*_ and _*four*_ abreast. They were _*all over*_ the road." (Real scenario: They were riding single file but one of them was a bit further out than the rest).



confusedcyclist said:


> People love an 'outside' group to rag on about. It's basic tribal mentality.


Don't they just. Bloody motorists.


----------



## benb (22 Dec 2015)

nickyboy said:


> At a practical level, not safer to ride two abreast. Fine to do so for social reasons but singling out when there is a car up to maintain good relations with other road users.



Not always. Sometimes holding two abreast is useful to deter a following driver from squeezing through where there isn't room to do so safely.
If you single up in such a place it can invite a close overtake.
Obviously depends on the road.


----------



## nickyboy (22 Dec 2015)

benb said:


> Not always. Sometimes holding two abreast is useful to deter a following driver from squeezing through where there isn't room to do so safely.
> If you single up in such a place it can invite a close overtake.
> Obviously depends on the road.



Agree, there are circumstances such as you describe. Just as there are circumstances where singling out is the right thing to do if there's just two riders. It's all about circumstances, there are no hard and fasts. Never always right to ride two abreast, just as its never always wrong


----------



## glenn forger (22 Dec 2015)

> Retweet if this pisses you off when you are trying to get home after a long day at work.








I found that on Twitter. People are playing with their phones in the car to take photos of riders making it easier for you at a spot where no sane driver would attempt an overtake in the first place. Holy Jumping Jehosephat, the entitlement is strong with this one.


----------



## Accy cyclist (23 Dec 2015)

benb said:


> Punch people and inflict serious pain in order to get more civilised behaviour.
> OK then.




I don't think reasonable debate would've worked with the fellow in the pub. Anyway i humiliated him when he passed me to go to the toilet. I held the door open for him making him walk under my arm.


----------



## BEHMOTH66 (23 Dec 2015)

steveindenmark said:


> I understand why cyclists ride 2 abreast. But I have experienced them on my local country roads where they refuse to even move in to passing places to let vehicles pass. Unfortunately, some are inconsiderate to other road users.
> 
> If cyclists wont share the road, why should they expect motorists to do the same?



I agree with you that there are a lot of inconsiderate road users, but maybe the cyclist view is if cars and vans won't share the road with us why should we with them after all a cyclist gets a lot more stick from vehicle owners than the other way round, and the problem with this is it just is an ever perpetuating circle


----------



## nickyboy (23 Dec 2015)

glenn forger said:


> I found that on Twitter. People are playing with their phones in the car to take photos of riders making it easier for you at a spot where no sane driver would attempt an overtake in the first place. Holy Jumping Jehosephat, the entitlement is strong with this one.




I think the fundamental issue is the difference of opinion as regards what constitutes a "safe pass". Taking the example above, as a car driver if they were singled out I would have no real problem with overtaking (but not on the bend). There are only 4 cyclists so I'd be past them quickly. In any case a vehicle coming the other way would se e me straddling the white line (and it would only be a straddle) and move over a bit so we could both safely continue

I appreciate that, even singled out, cyclists want car drivers to overtake by going right over to the oncoming side of the road. But it doesn't happen. It's never happened and it almost certainly never will happen. I personally have no problem with car drivers overtaking with a white line straddle. Gives plenty of room and on a decent road there's room for me, the overtaker and a car coming the other way


----------



## CUBE CRD (23 Dec 2015)

nickyboy said:


> Agree, there are circumstances such as you describe. Just as there are circumstances where singling out is the right thing to do if there's just two riders. It's all about circumstances, there are no hard and fasts. Never always right to ride two abreast, just as its never always wrong



Completely agree - well said.


----------



## glasgowcyclist (23 Dec 2015)

nickyboy said:


> In any case a vehicle coming the other way would se e me straddling the white line (and it would only be a straddle) and move over a bit so we could both safely continue




That puts you in a situation where you are passing the cyclists while you and the opposing car negotiate the remaining space, effectively you being the meat in a sandwich. 
That is _very_ unwise driving.

GC


----------



## PK99 (23 Dec 2015)

nickyboy said:


> I appreciate that, even singled out, cyclists want car drivers to *overtake by going right over to the oncoming side of the road*.



Why?

In Europe there are minimum passing distances set in a number of countries, in France the rule is that motorists need to give cyclists a minimum of 1m in towns (just over 3ft) and 1.5m (just under 5ft) on other roads, Germany and Spain go for 1.5m.

...

http://www.safecyclingiom.com/minimum-overtake-distance/4588861521


----------



## mjr (23 Dec 2015)

PK99 said:


> Why?
> 
> In Europe there are minimum passing distances set in a number of countries, in France the rule is that motorists need to give cyclists a minimum of 1m in towns (just over 3ft) and 1.5m (just under 5ft) on other roads, Germany and Spain go for 1.5m.


Because the road space is there and if there's not enough left for oncoming motorists to get through, why not use all of the width? It's also easier to judge the space remaining on the driver's side than on the far side.

UK guidance suggests you should allow at least 1.0m gap when passing at 20mph and 1.5m at 30mph, which combines with the normal cyclist's 1.2m dynamic envelope and 0.5m envelope-kerb clearance (all from LTN 2/08 - sadly these expectations aren't in the Highway Code or law yet) to mean your left edge should be at least 3.2m from the left kerb - which in a car of typically 1.9m width (published spec of Ford Mondeo) means your right edge should be at least 5.1m from the left kerb.

The widest standard lanes in the Design Manual for Roads and Bridges are 5m (an S2W lane, typically a rural single-carriageway A road) and you need to be 5.1m out, so even then you require the next lane right to be clear and you may as well change lane to pass a cyclist in secondary position at 30mph or more. A standard traffic lane is 3.65m wide - so if more than your left wheels are in the lane or if the cyclist is not in secondary position, you'd always be passing too close, so please don't take chances with cyclist lives and change lane fully to pass.

If there's two abreast, add another 1.2m to the widths, which means you're still in the next lane right and not beyond. In other words, whether a group cycling is singled or not is usually irrelevant because we should use the other lane to overtake when in a motor vehicle. If anything, two-abreast means shorter means quicker to pass.


----------



## Nigel-YZ1 (23 Dec 2015)

nickyboy said:


> I think the fundamental issue is the difference of opinion as regards what constitutes a "safe pass". Taking the example above, as a car driver if they were singled out I would have no real problem with overtaking (but not on the bend). There are only 4 cyclists so I'd be past them quickly. In any case a vehicle coming the other way would se e me straddling the white line (and it would only be a straddle) and move over a bit so we could both safely continue
> 
> I appreciate that, even singled out, cyclists want car drivers to overtake by going right over to the oncoming side of the road. But it doesn't happen. It's never happened and it almost certainly never will happen. I personally have no problem with car drivers overtaking with a white line straddle. Gives plenty of room and on a decent road there's room for me, the overtaker and a car coming the other way



And if the driver of the vehicle coming the other way thinks "fark you!" or is too busy on the mobile, everyone gets a chance to die


----------



## snorri (23 Dec 2015)

nickyboy said:


> I appreciate that, even singled out, cyclists want car drivers to overtake by going right over to the oncoming side of the road. But it doesn't happen. It's never happened and it almost certainly never will happen. I personally have no problem with car drivers overtaking with a white line straddle. Gives plenty of room and on a decent road there's room for me, the overtaker and a car coming the other way


IME it does happen, it has happened in the past and there is no reason why it should not continue to happen.
It doesn't happen when the driver is impatient and inconsiderate, and wants to overtake before a corner or oncoming vehicle. There are no roads in my locality where I want to be three abreast with an overtaking car and an approaching car.


----------



## nickyboy (23 Dec 2015)

User said:


> Not even when you are the one driving?



Actually no. I'm quite happy to overtake by straddling the white line when passing a lone cyclist or a singled out line. I'm talking about roads that, in my opinion, are wide enough to accommodate the cyclist, me overtaking and a vehicle coming the other way. I get overtaken like this all the time and I never regard it as an issue


----------



## nickyboy (23 Dec 2015)

PK99 said:


> Why?
> 
> In Europe there are minimum passing distances set in a number of countries, in France the rule is that motorists need to give cyclists a minimum of 1m in towns (just over 3ft) and 1.5m (just under 5ft) on other roads, Germany and Spain go for 1.5m.
> 
> ...



I was merely presenting the argument seen here from a lot of cyclists that the only safe overtake is one where the car goes all the way onto the other side of the road (and as such has to make sure that there are no vehicles coming the other way at all.

Depending on the nature of the road I don't believe that to be necessary. I also think that this is fundamentally where the conflict between two-abreast riders and car drivers comes from. Cyclists think that the car driver should overtake fully on the far side, even when riding single file. Car drivers do not


----------



## Brian Stacks (23 Dec 2015)

What about the times when the car has just passed us cyclist only to stop right in front of us. This will either make us stop suddenly, crash into the back of them or swerve onto the on coming traffic. Why can't cars become smaller on case we need to pass them!!!


----------



## vickster (23 Dec 2015)

Have you not mastered the art of levitation? Shame on you!


----------



## oldstrath (23 Dec 2015)

nickyboy said:


> I was merely presenting the argument seen here from a lot of cyclists that the only safe overtake is one where the car goes all the way onto the other side of the road (and as such has to make sure that there are no vehicles coming the other way at all.
> 
> Depending on the nature of the road I don't believe that to be necessary. I also think that this is fundamentally where the conflict between two-abreast riders and car drivers comes from. Cyclists think that the car driver should overtake fully on the far side, even when riding single file. Car drivers do not


Then car drivers are wrong.


----------



## nickyboy (23 Dec 2015)

oldstrath said:


> Then car drivers are wrong.



Unfortunately car drivers will say you are wrong. So the debate goes no further. Car drivers will keep doing straddle overtakes. If it really is the case that straddle overtaking is wrong (and I don't believe it is wrong) then it's incumbent on the cyclist representative bodies to get the education out there. They have been totally unsuccessful in this regard


----------



## oldstrath (23 Dec 2015)

nickyboy said:


> Unfortunately car drivers will say you are wrong. So the debate goes no further. Car drivers will keep doing straddle overtakes. If it really is the case that straddle overtaking is wrong (and I don't believe it is wrong) then it's incumbent on the cyclist representative bodies to get the education out there. They have been totally unsuccessful in this regard


If there's no other traffic and a clear view ahead it's unnecessary. If there other traffic it almost always leads to, at best, a pass that is too close. If there's a restricted view it is dangerous because the driver will be more concerned to avoid the danger to themselves than the danger to the cyclist.

Of course education ought to work. It won't, because a non-trivial proportion of otherwise normal people turn into impatient selfish farkwits as soon as they sit behind a steering wheel.

By the way, I was one of them. That's one reason I stopped driving.


----------



## mjr (23 Dec 2015)

nickyboy said:


> If it really is the case that straddle overtaking is wrong (and I don't believe it is wrong) then it's incumbent on the cyclist representative bodies to get the education out there.


Why don't you believe it's wrong? How can you justify it? Isn't the maths in post #69 convincing? If so, I can redo it with pictures to make the point clearer and send it up to the various national bodies.


----------



## StuartG (23 Dec 2015)

glenn forger said:


>



I bet if you asked the average driver they would say these cyclists are riding four abreast. Whereas if you look closely its probably two pairs with no overlap. But the apparent sin, (and I don't agree there is a sin) is doubled.

They look as though they are working hard and probably doing 20+ mph. You can't overtake until well into that left hanger in difficult conditions and the SatNav shows its going to be easier after the bend so - a cyclist driving would probably complement the back 'guard' rider for being well positioned (and illuminated). The non-cycling driver would probably not understand and fume.

There is no real solution without:

a) Draconian enforcement of a presently non-existent law (never going to happen)
b) Mandate passing a cycle proficiency test before being given a provisional licence (not going to happen in my lifetime either)

Which means when riding with a group we just have to accept the moans, hold our ground and not allow it to ruin our day. Just returning a smile through clenched teeth.


----------



## glenn forger (23 Dec 2015)

StuartG said:


> The non-cycling driver would probably not understand and fume.



Non-thinking would be better. Anyone who looks at that photo and reckons the riders are doing anything wrong is too thick to drive. That's an acquired prejudice, nobody explicitly taught them that the riding is incorrect but their privilege is so rampantly unchecked that they are DESPERATE to fanny about with their phone to take a photo while driving of cyclists doing nothing wrong. If it wasn't this it would be something else. I swear to God sooner or later some perishing chuffer's going to upload a photo of a cyclist munching a sandwich with the caption "This is what makes people hate cyclists!" A cyclist sitting on a bench reading a map "LOOK AT THIS IDIOT!"


----------



## snorri (23 Dec 2015)

nickyboy said:


> Unfortunately car drivers will say you are wrong. So the debate goes no further. Car drivers will keep doing straddle overtakes. If it really is the case that straddle overtaking is wrong (and I don't believe it is wrong) then it's incumbent on the cyclist representative bodies to get the education out there. They have been totally unsuccessful in this regard


The Highway Code says you should leave a cyclist as much room as you would a car. My interpretation of that would be you should leave the width of the lane for the cyclist, as you would a car, when overtaking and that straddle overtaking is wrong.


----------



## growingvegetables (23 Dec 2015)

nickyboy said:


> .... then it's incumbent on the cyclist representative bodies to get the education out there.


Sorry - but rubbish!

Legislate for minimum passing distance, update the HC accordingly, and police the transgressors.

Education plays a part - fine. But only if the law, policing, and penalties are in place ... like with drink-driving.


----------



## moo (23 Dec 2015)

Double white lines - I take aggressive primary position which is akin to two abreast. Despite doing 25-35mph on a nice 2 mile stretch of twisty road I've yet to see a vehicle hold back. I almost witnessed a HGV vs HGV incident a few weeks ago. If a line of cyclists were to ride single file they would be under that HGV as it swerved back in.


----------



## glenn forger (23 Dec 2015)

Plain clothes coppers on bikes, get a few hundred thousand fines for close passes handed out and I reckon drivers would suddenly become more receptive to the concept of sharing the road.


----------



## StuartG (23 Dec 2015)

glenn forger said:


> Non-thinking would be better. Anyone who looks at that photo and reckons the riders are doing anything wrong is too thick to drive. That's an acquired prejudice, nobody explicitly taught them that the riding is incorrect but their privilege is so rampantly unchecked that they are DESPERATE to fanny about with their phone to take a photo while driving of cyclists doing nothing wrong. If it wasn't this it would be something else. I swear to God sooner or later some perishing chuffer's going to upload a photo of a cyclist munching a sandwich with the caption "This is what makes people hate cyclists!" A cyclist sitting on a bench reading a map "LOOK AT THIS IDIOT!"


Oh dear. Time to check your blood pressure. That's more likely to kill you than this driver.

I guess in my more extreme moments I've thought that most people are too thick to be on this planet. Look again at the picture through they eyes of someone who hasn't ridden, yet alone group ridden. Without understanding I maintain that most motorists would think they are riding four abreast. Its an optical illusion easily done.

The real error, if it was so, that they distracted themselves from the prime task of driving to take this picture. Is this because they are stupid or just have a short fuse? And I've seen as many short fuses on two wheels as four. Doesn't excuse it but that is a human trait our culture rather feeds. 

Airline pilots probably drive as badly as most drivers. But when they get into the cockpit things change. They obey speed limits precisely. They go through checklists meticulously, they don't try a risky overtake to get to the runway first. And if they do they get fired and lose their licence permanently. Which is one reason they don't misbehave. But its also an expectation from everybody the other side of the cockpit door. From people who drove too fast to the airport and thought the parking restrictions were for other people.

Until we can somehow shift our culture to expect car drivers to behave professionally like pilots (who kill rather less people) - they won't. Culture change is very difficult but not impossible. Thinking of ways of achieving it rather than having a rant may be more productive and make you a nicer person to share this planet or even a Surrey lane with.


----------



## glenn forger (23 Dec 2015)

StuartG said:


> Without understanding I maintain that most motorists would think they are riding four abreast. Its an optical illusion easily done.
> 
> .



They didn't. The person who posted the photo got laughed at and ridiculed. Everyone who isn't a whackjob can see the riders are blameless. That's kind of the point, that such an innocuous road position could be so misunderstood by someone playing with their phone.


----------



## glenn forger (23 Dec 2015)

Case in point:



> *Tomas Hartvig* ‏@tomashartvig  Dec 19
> If you wanna kill yourself, this is a good way. Fxxxxxg idiot cyclists.


----------



## andyfraser (23 Dec 2015)

glenn forger said:


> Plain clothes coppers on bikes, get a few hundred thousand fines for close passes handed out and I reckon drivers would suddenly become more receptive to the concept of sharing the road.


I suggested that to an officer once. I wasn't being entirely serious but I could tell he didn't like that sound of it. He's the one who said he wouldn't cycle on the roads in Wiltshire.


----------



## glenn forger (23 Dec 2015)

When coppers come out with "I wouldn't cycle these days, too dangerous" I want to shake them violently.


----------



## jonny jeez (23 Dec 2015)

benb said:


> If they gave it a moment's thought they'd realise that in group situations, it's often easier to overtake cyclists 2 or more abreast, as there's less linear room to navigate.


To be honest, that diagrams fails for me.. even as a cyclist.

How often do drivers really come across a group of nine riders and if they did then any fool amongst them would appreciate the group bunching up.

I think 2 or 4 riders are the "groups" that cause frustration. In this situation I struggle to paint a picture (like the above) that can show a benefit to a driver and i think it better to just share the road and single out when a car is around to save holding up traffic, even if that means slowing and moving over too, why not...it'll hold me up a lot less than I could hold them up by being obstinate and riding by the law, if not by common courtesy.

I think the problem is one of sharing...introduce one stubborn rider to one stubborn driver and pretty soon you have yourself a radio phone in, followed by a reciprical internet chat that attracts all manner of ignorance and conflict...where there needn't be any.

so, to me the joy of riding two a breast should be treated as a privilege...unless of course I am riding in a peloton of 9 riders.

In busy towns I find it possible to ride two abreast in some instances but these are mostly limited to bus lanes and CS paths.

I shall duck for cover now.


----------



## growingvegetables (23 Dec 2015)

jonny jeez said:


> ... so, to me the joy of riding two a breast should be treated as a privilege...


Riding two abreast could be LOTS of things ... but NEVER that. EVER!


----------



## StuartG (23 Dec 2015)

glenn forger said:


> Case in point:


This was very unlikely to have been taken by the driver, check the licence, the windscreen wipers, the country. Why can't a non-driver misunderstand situations, play with their camera and be a bit of twit on Twitter? Or did you misread this situation?


----------



## Brian Stacks (23 Dec 2015)

What we need is called common sense! Allas it will not happen anytime soon. I strongly believe that this problem starts at conception where the same idiots overtake and cut up everyone else to fertilise the egg before the sensible ones get a look in!!!


----------



## guitarpete247 (23 Dec 2015)

A few years ago I was out for a midweek ride when around a blind bend, ahead of me, came a local cycle club on a midweek ride. They took up the whole road almost (I know almost is what it says) rode me off the road. If I'd been a car there might have been a more unfortunate result. We all have to be wary of what may be around the corner.

I almost drove into a horse drawn caravan, on my side of the road, whilst on a motoring tour of Ireland. So now I tend to think about what I may meet at blind bends.

I hang back behind cyclists and horses till I can see ahead is safe. Drive round bends hugging the apex, at speed. What do you do if there's a walker, cyclist or horse, or even broken down car beyond the bend.


----------



## jonny jeez (23 Dec 2015)

growingvegetables said:


> Riding two abreast could be LOTS of things ... but NEVER that. EVER!


Fair enough, clearly we disagree.


----------

