# What is the Law (UK) when it comes to cycling in the road?



## roadracerash1 (27 Jun 2012)

As suggested in the question I have a minor question which I hope will clarify my arguement when I'm cycling on the road and i encounter raged motorists so here it is:
*When cycling on a public road how many riders can ride side by side to be riding legally?*
I ask this because I'm usually quite a polite and responsible road user and ride single file when I'm out cycling in a group. The other day when I was cycling up a hill my friend, who by the way had only just got on a road bike for the first time, I decided to ride beside him to give him some advice. The road we were riding on was quite wide and spacious. As soon as I did that we had every car beep and shoot profanitys at us i kid you not. Which then makes me question If we were in the wrong? Or has society become a pit of road raged loonatics who can't wait less than 30 seconds before safely overtaking? Was i in the wrong or are motorists in the wrong?


----------



## MissTillyFlop (27 Jun 2012)

You are legally allowed to ride two abreast, but I try to avoid doing so because of inbred motons such as those mentioned in your post.


----------



## GrasB (27 Jun 2012)

The *advice* is to ride no more than 2 abreast & not on narrow or busy roads. Legally I don't think there's anything stopping a group from riding in such a manner to take up all the lane, but that's hardly the polite thing to do.

I'd not let it bother you my self. I regularly get abuse for 'riding along side' another rider, despite the fact I'll be doing over twice their speed in almost all cases. It's the fact they've actually noticed you & have been forced to call in some judgement as to when they can overtake rather than charge headlong into the situation without thought.


----------



## dellzeqq (27 Jun 2012)

there are times when riding two abreast is sensible, irrespective of the delay it might cause. If you're in a large group on a busy road it regulates and shortens overtaking


----------



## Nigel-YZ1 (27 Jun 2012)

Yes, I think society is breeding self-obsessed, impatient, arrogant tossers that shouldn't be allowed near a motor vehicle. Apart from that it's utopia


----------



## GrumpyGregry (27 Jun 2012)

a loon in a car accused me of riding two abreast yesterday. I was in primary. So far as I know I commute alone. I think the lead they used to put in petrol has a lot to answer for.


----------



## dynohub (27 Jun 2012)

dellzeqq said:


> there are times when riding two abreast is sensible, irrespective of the delay it might cause. If you're in a large group on a busy road it regulates and shortens overtaking


 
This is a good point. I've encountered groups of cyclists on roads where passing them if they were in single file would have been very hazardous but by bunching up they become a "slow van" and can be passed quickly and safely. The first time this happened to me when driving it took me a while to realise this. Personally I never cycle two abreast as I'm an old, slow, fairweather, "go to the shops" cyclist so I'm always on my own...


----------



## roadracerash1 (27 Jun 2012)

Nigel-YZ1 said:


> Yes, I think society is breeding self-obsessed, impatient, arrogant tossers that shouldn't be allowed near a motor vehicle. Apart from that it's utopia


 
My thoughts exactly.


----------



## roadracerash1 (27 Jun 2012)

So far I've been rather pleased with the replies. I knew deep down that I had done nothing wrong. All i was doing was helping my friend to use the roads in a safe manner. 
Alot of these comments have made me realize that i shouldn't hate the haters but rather commend them for noticing me. Maybe i shall use that next time I encounter a potty mouth and point out that I'm glad the spotted me, beeped the horn to give me warning that they're there and talked to me to acknowledge I'm actually there. Thanks guys.


----------



## Red Light (27 Jun 2012)

GregCollins said:


> a loon in a car accused me of riding two abreast yesterday. I was in primary. So far as I know I commute alone. I think the lead they used to put in petrol has a lot to answer for.


 
If they complain to me about riding two abreast I simply point out that they too are sat there two abreast but with a (usually) empty seat rather than an occupied one. And if they didn't insist on lugging those extra seats around they would be narrow enough to overtake with no problems. Sadly most of them don't seem to understand irony.


----------



## Nearly there (27 Jun 2012)

Im always amazed at how many cars overtake me on blind bends If I can't see around the on coming bend how the hell can they


----------



## dynohub (27 Jun 2012)

In the highway code, law is recognisable by the word "must" usually (as opposed to "should")


----------



## machew (27 Jun 2012)

And surely two normal bikes wouldn't be a problem, but two trikes would take most of the road


----------



## subaqua (27 Jun 2012)

dynohub said:


> In the highway code, law is recognisable by the word "must" usually (as opposed to "should")


 it will be *bold* as well and state the legislation title and section


----------



## Boris Bajic (27 Jun 2012)

I tend not to ride two-abreast.

When my children were (much) younger I rode behind and slightly to their offside, but not as far out as two-abreast.

On longer rides now with any of them or my wife, we occasionally go side-by-side when there's no traffic.

There's no law against riding two-abreast, as already pointed out - but both as a motorist and a cyclist I prefer not to see it done too often.

Where someone is learning or lacks confidence (whether adult or child) it makes perfect sense.

It's a shame that some road users get huffy about it and beep or rev their engines.

There is much more room for a little give and take in our society than some of us seem to realise.

I blame everybody else. I mean all of them. Bastards!


----------



## MrJamie (27 Jun 2012)

I try not to ride two abreast or if we are we usually go single file when a car is catching.


Nearly there said:


> Im always amazed at how many cars overtake me on blind bends If I can't see around the on coming bend how the hell can they


This is what ive noticed the most, I love the nice wide considerate overtakes but completely on the other side of the road just before a blind bend?!?!


----------



## theclaud (27 Jun 2012)

Boris Bajic said:


> There's no law against riding two-abreast, as already pointed out - but both as a motorist and a cyclist* I prefer not to see it done too often.*


 
I, on the other hand, prefer to see it done as often as possible. We've done this before, of course.


----------



## srw (27 Jun 2012)

It's horses for courses. On busy, wide roads, I'd prefer to see single file cycling in a reasonably strong position - wide enough to force a sensible overtake but not so wide as to annoy. On narrow lanes with no traffic, two-abreast is fantastic.

Of course, if there are two of you, there's one very simple solution to the problem of riding at different speeds. Ditch two of the wheels.


----------



## GrumpyGregry (27 Jun 2012)

theclaud said:


> I, on the other hand, prefer to see it done as often as possible. We've done this before, of course.


I attempt to do it as often as is humanly possible. And if it delays motorists, well, yah boo sucks to the lot of 'em. They have plenty of horsepower and can make up the time in minutes; often by illegally ignoring speed limits.


----------



## derrick (27 Jun 2012)

I ride two abreast, but when i hear a car coming i drop back to single file unless it's a nice wide road.


----------



## Boris Bajic (27 Jun 2012)

theclaud said:


> I, on the other hand, prefer to see it done as often as possible. We've done this before, of course.


 
 I have a feeling we have. If I remember correctly, I was wrong and the rest of humanity were right.


----------



## glasgowcyclist (27 Jun 2012)

Nearly there said:


> Im always amazed at how many cars overtake me on blind bends If I can't see around the on coming bend how the hell can they


 
It's not always as daft as it seems.

From your (secondary) position you'll not see very far into/around the bend but a car driver, who has a view from much further out to your right, will see more, and the further out he is the better view he'll have.







GC


----------



## theclaud (27 Jun 2012)

Boris Bajic said:


> I have a feeling we have. If I remember correctly, I was wrong and the rest of humanity were right.


 
Usually you aren't so much _wrong_ as slippery and equivocal.


----------



## Boris Bajic (27 Jun 2012)

theclaud said:


> Usually you aren't so much _wrong_ as slippery and equivocal.


 
Is that a posh way of saying I stumble around with an armagnac and a confused expression, asking everyone to be lovely to one another while trying to combine my love of bicycles and my passion for cars and motoring?


----------



## GrumpyGregry (27 Jun 2012)

Boris Bajic said:


> Is that a posh way of saying I stumble around with an armagnac and a confused expression, asking everyone to be lovely to one another while trying to combine my love of bicycles and my passion for cars and motoring?


just don't combine your love of armagnac with your love of motoring.


----------



## theclaud (27 Jun 2012)

Boris Bajic said:


> Is that a posh way of saying I stumble around with an armagnac and a confused expression, asking everyone to be lovely to one another while trying to combine my love of bicycles and my passion for cars and motoring?


 
No. No one is fooled by the notion that you are amiably confused. Well, no one except Mugshot, anyway.


----------



## theclaud (27 Jun 2012)

1908256 said:


> And me. *I reserve the right to be fooled if I see fit.*


Is this an oblique reference to a night with Greg Collins involving Sudocrem and purple satin sheets?


----------



## ufkacbln (27 Jun 2012)

I have just spent a couple of days in the Netherlands, and no-one would raise an eyebrow.

We were driving through Schagen and there was a family of four taking up most of the road as they cycled and chatted. Traffic just worked around them!

No-one swore at them, beeped, shouted, revved their engines!

We passed them and about 400 yards up the road were two young girls, again chatting as they cycled along, and again n-one was concerned, just drove around them when it was safe to do so giving plenty of room.


----------



## GrumpyGregry (28 Jun 2012)

theclaud said:


> Is this an oblique reference to a night with Greg Collins involving Sudocrem and purple satin sheets?


C'mon! What happens on tour stays on tour..... Dems da rules.


----------



## dellzeqq (28 Jun 2012)

glasgowcyclist said:


> It's not always as daft as it seems.
> 
> From your (secondary) position you'll not see very far into/around the bend but a car driver, who has a view from much further out to your right, will see more, and the further out he is the better view he'll have.
> 
> ...


not always but mostly. And especially when it's on a right hand bend


----------



## roadracerash1 (28 Jun 2012)

Thank you for all your comments. I originally posted this thread to make sure i wasn't deliberately peeing motorists off. But being a cyclist, as many of you will know, automatically makes you hated by society. Best of luck to all that are surviving the urban environment.


----------



## GrasB (28 Jun 2012)

glasgowcyclist said:


> It's not always as daft as it seems.
> 
> From your (secondary) position you'll not see very far into/around the bend but a car driver, who has a view from much further out to your right, will see more, and the further out he is the better view he'll have.


There is only a small window where you won't be able to see if it's clear & the driver of the overtaking vehicle will. Remember to overtake safely you need to have confidence that you can execute the entire manoeuvre in the space you have available plus leave enough time for an oncoming vehicle react to being presented with you on the wrong side of the road.


----------



## GrumpyGregry (28 Jun 2012)

1908952 said:


> Strangely I never heard that said once at the time


the ball-gag making it somewhat difficult to speak perhaps?


----------



## classic33 (28 Jun 2012)

glasgowcyclist said:


> It's not always as daft as it seems.
> 
> From your (secondary) position you'll not see very far into/around the bend but a car driver, who has a view from much further out to your right, will see more, and the further out he is the better view he'll have.
> 
> ...


 
That doesn't work for right hand bends/corners, as the driver would then have a narrower field of vision of the road.


----------



## GrumpyGregry (28 Jun 2012)

classic33 said:


> That doesn't work for right hand bends/corners, as the driver would then have a narrower field of vision of the road.


It doesn't work for most bends/corners cos the chuffing driver is bonnet watching.


----------



## glasgowcyclist (28 Jun 2012)

classic33 said:


> That doesn't work for right hand bends/corners, as the driver would then have a narrower field of vision of the road.



I know. 
That's why I wrote "not always" and gave the left-hand bend example.


GC


----------



## al78 (1 Jul 2012)

roadracerash1 said:


> As suggested in the question I have a minor question which I hope will clarify my arguement when I'm cycling on the road and i encounter raged motorists so here it is:
> *When cycling on a public road how many riders can ride side by side to be riding legally?*
> I ask this because I'm usually quite a polite and responsible road user and ride single file when I'm out cycling in a group. The other day when I was cycling up a hill my friend, who by the way had only just got on a road bike for the first time, I decided to ride beside him to give him some advice. The road we were riding on was quite wide and spacious. As soon as I did that we had every car beep and shoot profanitys at us i kid you not. Which then makes me question If we were in the wrong? Or has society become a pit of road raged loonatics who can't wait less than 30 seconds before safely overtaking? Was i in the wrong or are motorists in the wrong?


 
If the road is wide enough that it would be safe for other vehicles to overtake if you were in single file but not when side by side, then single out, otherwise stay side by side.

It just comes down to thought and consideration in the end, after all, the roads are a public shared resource and we should use them with the same regard for social etiquette that we use in other aspects of our lives.


----------



## Cyclopathic (30 Jul 2012)

Did some one mention breasts?


----------



## summerdays (30 Jul 2012)

On quiet back roads, I will cycle side by side with a friend and drop into single file to enable a driver to pass. On busier roads I will tend to be in single file until we are at the same speed as the cars then I double up. Don't think I've been hassled yet by a car for doing this.


----------



## Electric_Andy (30 Jul 2012)

IMO Riding two abreast is like the national speed limit on country roads - do it if it's safe, but if it's not then don't do it. A few years ago I was in my car on one of those annoying roads that has space for 1.5 cars. A group of club riders came aorund a blind corner and were all riding 2 wide. I had to break sharply and stop in the hedge - and they all looked at me as if it were my fault for going too fast. However, if it is on an A-road with plenty of room then I see no problem.


----------



## Electric_Andy (31 Jul 2012)

User said:


> If you had to brake sharply and ended up in the hedge then you were going too fast...


 ok then


----------



## ufkacbln (31 Jul 2012)

Cyclopathic said:


> Did some one mention breasts?


 
Just the one as in *a*breast


----------



## NHS Biker (12 Aug 2012)

An interesting debate, and have to agree that the Highway Code is not the Law of the road, but more in terms of road safety advice, the law of the Road is the Road Traffic Act 1988, of which there is a very small part relating to cyclists, part 1 Chapter 52, item 28 if I recall. However, it is legal for cyclists to ride 2 a breast, however it is not advisable in view of narrow roads but no one exactly knows what is defined as a narrow road in terms of width of the road, my friends and I were cautioned when we were teenagers by a motorcycle cop, (When Nottingham had them) that it is advisable not to ride 2 a breast on roads that don't have lane markings, one way streets and roads that exceed 30mph. The Institute of Advanced Motorists (IAM) of which I am a member of, now conduct road training for cyclists http://www.iam.org.uk/cyclist. There has been some interesting debates of which the same advice is given to cyclists in the same view as Motorcyclists and that is ride defensively, keep left of centre, not left of the dotted lines, but left of the centre of the lane you are in. More and more cyclists are now using helmet camera's and there has been many successful convictions of "cage" drivers who drive without due care and attention due to submission of footage to the Police. Some very good examples on Youtube. I did my cycle proficiency in 1983 at the age of 8, and was taught not to go on the inside of lorries, as A), they need a wider turning arc to turn left and some trailers especially those that exceed 40ft have independent turning axles. B) The mirrors have blind spots, C) most of the indicator bulbs don't work. Same as cars, there are more blind spots on car mirrors than there are on HGV mirrors, which has been proved in the motorcycle press.


----------



## dslippy (14 Aug 2012)

NHS Biker said:


> An interesting debate, and have to agree that the Highway Code is not the Law of the road, but more in terms of road safety advice, the law of the Road is the Road Traffic Act 1988 . .


 
The Highway Code is rather more than advice. It is not statute, but rather sets definitive standards, and will be looked to by any court deciding whether what you were doing was correct.[/quote]


----------



## beany_bot (21 Aug 2012)

If I am driving country roads and come up behind 2 a breast cyclists I give a very gentle toot to let them know I am there, then hopefully they fall I to single file and I can pass with a vans width inbetween us. 
Some cyclists wave and understand my toot was just to let them no I am there and in no hurry and I wave as I pass and it's happy days. 

Unfortunately though, and it sadens me to say this most cyclist immediately get on the defensive and construe my gesture as aggressive and start effin and blinding and often just stay 2 a breast. I met one such pair further down the road, and politely asked them how I was supposed to pass them safety when the right hand rider was nearly on the white line in the middle of the road and was met with "yeah like you care, just a typical impatient car driver blah blah"


----------



## srw (21 Aug 2012)

That's because tooting your horn _is_ aggressive. The sound of an engine is quite enough to let cyclists know you're there. If the right-hand rider is on the white line in the middle of the road you've got a whole lane's worth of tarmac to pass them on - more than you often get to pass a tractor. How much more do you want?


----------



## beany_bot (21 Aug 2012)

srw said:


> That's because tooting your horn _is_ aggressive. The sound of an engine is quite enough to let cyclists know you're there. If the right-hand rider is on the white line in the middle of the road you've got a whole lane's worth of tarmac to pass them on - more than you often get to pass a tractor. How much more do you want?


 
I want at least a cars width thats how much, to allow for wobble room. A "tractor" isn't likely to topple under my wheels now is it?
Tooting gently is NOT aggressive it is to alert them of my presence. If they have already seen me of course I don't bother tooting as I don't need to.

Honestly mate, attitudes like that give cyclists a bad name in my book. One minute you want people passing at a safe distance but then when it suits you you want them to squeeze past just a foot away? Give me strength...


----------



## GrasB (21 Aug 2012)

beany_bot said:


> Tooting gently is NOT aggressive it is to alert them of my presence. If they have already seen me of course I don't bother tooting as I don't need to.


With most cars you can't 'toot gently' as the horn is on or off, it might only be on for half a second but it's sill loud & liable to make the target jump & be alarming to them. Personally the only reason I use a horn in a non-emergency situation is to alert another driver in a motor vehicle.


----------



## srw (21 Aug 2012)

Here's the thing. As a cyclist, if I hear an engine behind me I think "potentially dangerous vehicle". If I'm riding with just one other person I'm likely to single out - there's a reasonable chance they'll pass safely. If I also hear a horn behind me I think "impatient git". I want to control that vehicle and that driver - I'll make sure that it can only pass me on _my_ terms.


----------



## beany_bot (21 Aug 2012)

1995847 said:


> Could we hear a recording of the horn in question? If it sounds parp parp like Noddy's car then it may well sound unaggressive inside the car. Unfortunatly that doesn't stop it from sounding like "get out of my f***ing way" from the perspective of the recipient.



It plays la cucaracha!!! No, joking aside. I don't just race up behind cyclists beeping the horn wildly. I sit patiently behind a them and if after a period of time they haven't seen me, or just don't care and refuse to single file, I let them know of my presence and intention. I really don't see how this is a problem. At the end of the day all I am concerned with is being able to pass them safety, which I can NOT do on narrow country roads if they are two a breast. There is no need to cycle 2 a breast for 100% of your journey, there IS a need to pass you safety.


----------



## ianrauk (21 Aug 2012)

Tooting gently?
ffs I have heard it all now.

Using the car horn is using the car horn.
A driver using it behind cyclists can only be in an impatient get out of my way manner.

All car drivers have to do is be patient and cyclists will allow or help a pass once it is safe to do so.


----------



## beany_bot (21 Aug 2012)

ianrauk said:


> Tooting gently?
> ffs I have heard it all now.
> 
> Using the car horn is using the car horn.
> ...


 if o ly that were true! I've waited 5 miles plus before behind 2 a breast cyclists before giving a gentle toot and a smile just to let them know I would like to pass safely. Really pisses me off that the same cyclists that demand a cars width (rightly so) on their commute, will happily expect you to squeeze past because they want to ride 2 a breast for 100% of their country ride???


----------



## beany_bot (21 Aug 2012)

As others have said, ride 2 a breast when it is safe to do so. All I was saying is that it is aparent to me that many do it deliberately to antagonise. 
Not all of course.


----------



## ianrauk (21 Aug 2012)

beany_bot said:


> if o ly that were true! I've waited 5 miles plus before behind 2 a breast cyclists before giving a gentle toot and a smile just to let them know I would like to pass safely. Really pisses me off that the same cyclists that demand a cars width (rightly so) on their commute, will happily expect you to squeeze past because they want to ride 2 a breast for 100% of their country ride???


 

5 miles? Have you a google map of this road that doesn't allow a safe pass or a turn off for 5 miles. 
In all the years of me cycling and with the many many people I have had the pleasure of cycling with. I have never had a group or individuals willing hold up a car for 5 miles.

And what is this gentle toot you speak.
I have heard of a car horn being a car horn. They are usually one loud tone. Does yours have a 'gentle toot' switch?


----------



## beany_bot (21 Aug 2012)

Ok fine. Im a bad driver for wanting to pass cyclists safetly (which is not possible if a cyclists refuses (and for no good reason I might add) to move from 2 a breast hugging the middle of the road). My bad. All I was saying is that its a two way street (pardon the pun) cyclists need to help themselves as much as drivers need to help them. I was making a point that it seems to me, on occasion cyclists ride two a breast, deliberately, to antagonise. And it would seem that from some of the responses here I am not wrong!


----------



## srw (21 Aug 2012)

Oh, you're definitely wrong. Cyclists ride two abreast, deliberately, to minimise the possibility that potentially dangerous drivers affect them.

Just for the sake of balance - the last time I was tooted at by a driver was on the road south out of Aylesbury. I was close to a pinch point before a roundabout, so I positioned myself well out into the road, looked behind me and saw a yellow van. I shrugged at it, as if to say "what am I supposed to do about your impatience?"

When I got to the roundabout I decided to be generous - it's a decent two-laner with no right turn. So I went well over to the left to allow the van past. The "van" turned out to be an ambulance with its blue lights flashing. It proceeded up the road at a very stately 40mph.

I still haven't worked out why, if it was on an an emergency call, it didn't go just a little faster, or add its sirens to its lights. I know that ambulances carrying some patients _to_ hospital won't use their sirens, but since we were going away from the only hospital in the area I'm completely at a loss.


----------



## beany_bot (21 Aug 2012)

srw said:


> Oh, you're definitely wrong. Cyclists ride two abreast, deliberately, to minimise the possibility that potentially dangerous drivers affect them.


 
Have you lost your marbles?

Riding 1 a breast = allows car to overtake with 6 feet of room.
Riding 2 a breast = encourages car drivers (not me but many) to overtake with 1 foot of room. 

You've got to be crazy to try and argue a case around that.


----------



## srw (21 Aug 2012)

beany_bot said:


> You've got to be crazy to try and argue a case around that.


 Try reading the thread again - the _whole_ thread.


----------



## Archie_tect (21 Aug 2012)

No please, not all of it, not again...


----------



## snorri (21 Aug 2012)

Nearly there said:


> Im always amazed at how many cars overtake me on blind bends If I can't see around the on coming bend how the hell can they


Some drivers have special powers which other mere mortals can't even begin to imagine.


----------



## dslippy (21 Aug 2012)

This seems to me (on both sides) a slight case for Cognitive Behavioual Therapy.
There is no real thing such as a gentle beep. A horn is a horn. It cannot be heard as such. Equally, a cyclist (or anyone else) hearing a beep should not assume the intention to be aggressive.
We are told when coming up behind walkers on a towpath to ring a bell. There is no such thing as a gentle ting. The pedestrian should assume no more than that the cyclist is alerting him to his presence.
It is daft to talk of cyclists aggressively riding side by side. They are doing as they are told. If they ride the one behind the other, it remains as difficult to pass as when they are side by side - they are longer.
We all have to share the road, and are equally entitled to an interpretation of our behaviour which starts out as amicable, and descends only if no other inference is available.


----------



## growingvegetables (21 Aug 2012)

beany_bot said:


> If I am driving country roads and come up behind 2 a breast cyclists I give a very gentle toot to let them know I am there, then hopefully they fall I to single file and I can pass with a vans width inbetween us.
> Some cyclists wave and understand my toot was just to let them no I am there and in no hurry and I wave as I pass and it's happy days.
> 
> Unfortunately though, and it sadens me to say this most cyclist immediately get on the defensive and construe my gesture as aggressive and start effin and blinding and often just stay 2 a breast. I met one such pair further down the road, and politely asked them how I was supposed to pass them safety when the right hand rider was nearly on the white line in the middle of the road and was met with "yeah like you care, just a typical impatient car driver blah blah"


*Bleat alert.*

Facts
- cyclists are allowed to cycle two abreast. No question. No argument.
- the only limitations in the HC - "ride in single file on narrow or busy roads and when riding round bends".

Reality
- a numpty in a van expects to be able to pass them safely at his (and *only* his) convenience; in "his majesty's" opinion, cyclists are not allowed to have any sense of convenience.
- and toots cos he wants past (note - no indication that it's a narrow road, busy road or a bend).
- and is surprised that cyclists do not immediately dismount, bow down, tug their forelock, and grovel in the ditch before "his majesty" in his van.

Why am I so rude? Because I suspect you gave your arrogant, self-serving sense of entitlement away, in one very simple and stupid phrase - "I can pass with* a vans width* inbetween us." There's no way on earth a van can physically pass a cyclist with "a van's width" anywhere on country roads around me, without ploughing through farmers' fences, potatoes, wheat, yards, byres, kennels etc etc etc etc.


----------



## beany_bot (21 Aug 2012)

growingvegetables said:


> *Bleat alert.*
> 
> Why am I so rude? Because I suspect you gave your arrogant, self-serving sense of entitlement away, in one very simple and stupid phrase - "I can pass with* a vans width* inbetween us." There's no way on earth a van can physically pass a cyclist with "a van's width" anywhere on country roads around me, without ploughing through farmers' fences, potatoes, wheat, yards, byres, kennels etc etc etc etc.


 
Thanks mate, good to know cyclists are such a friendly bunch 

FYI "vans width" is what I was taught when I learned to drive, in reality, vans width, cars width, whatever, who cares. I meant at a safe distance.

Your opening line "*Facts - cyclists are allowed to cycle two abreast. No question. No argument." *Do you really think that attitude is helping cyclist/driver relations? Nah mate its not, your just a trouble maker end of. And clearly one of those cyclists who deliberatly make it as difficult to pass as possible. And then scream at shout because a car passed you too close. You look for trouble and are bad for the roads no matter what your on. I've no time for people like you, I'm a good and courteous driver who has never been in an accident in 30 years and who cares about vulnerable roads users. And and not going to have your attitude change that.

Oh and FYI yes it is a narrow and very busy country road otherwise, if it were a wide road I could pass safety with 2 a breast. But not on a dangerous road with blind corners and some moron like you sitting out in the middle of the road purely because of their "f*** cars" attitude.


----------



## beany_bot (21 Aug 2012)

1997217 said:


> Bleating driver's forum is >


I'm a cyclist too Adrian, just not a narrow minded one.


----------



## beany_bot (21 Aug 2012)

1997256 said:


> That you may be, but right here you are being a bleating driver and expecting anyone on a cycling forum to give a toss is misguided at best.
> You postulate that cyclists asserting their right to use the road is unhelpful to driver cyclist relations. The inference I draw is that you believe getting out of motorists way would make the love us more. Bollocks I saw, the more we give the more they expect.


 
Im not saying anything about "cyclists right to use the road" which is absolute. I'm having a go at cyclists who deliberately annoy car drivers just to antagonise. And yeah, it's doing nothing for car - bike relations. I take it your really are deep in the mindset of "them" and "us" aren't you? Thats pretty clear from your posts. Well maybe if you took the blinkers off it might help. It would be far better if all road users tried to understand each others needs and look out for one another better. (and that includes not driving 2 a breast deliberately to prove some point or annoy people)

Just to reiterate - I have absolutely no problem what so ever with cyclists riding 2, hell riding 3 a breast. 
I have an issue when they do it deliberately to hold up traffic just so they can have their little troll grin on their face. 
Most car drivers just fly past them regardless but I'm set on giving a safe distance when passing, so that leaves me sitting behind these trolls for mile after mile after mile.


----------



## david k (21 Aug 2012)

srw said:


> That's because tooting your horn _is_ aggressive. The sound of an engine is quite enough to let cyclists know you're there. If the right-hand rider is on the white line in the middle of the road you've got a whole lane's worth of tarmac to pass them on - more than you often get to pass a tractor. How much more do you want?


isnt the horn to let somebody know your there?


----------



## david k (21 Aug 2012)

1997292 said:


> Yes but why do you need to let them know this?


 
i think beanybot said he only does it if he has been behind them for a while and its likely they havnt seen him

i cycle 2 a breast and when i hear a car we drop into single file. never had a problem. did this the other day and someone beeped, he did put his hand up in thanks as he passed. didnt seem any issues to me. whether im riding or driving a like to be considerate to other road users.

rather than riders and drivers becoming angry with each other i think a more suitable way forward is to educate all road users. not sure how that could be done though, adverts?


----------



## david k (21 Aug 2012)

1997316 said:


> Yeah right. When have you ever had a car behind you and didn't know it was there?


it does happen, not frequently but it does


----------



## david k (21 Aug 2012)

1997332 said:


> It might happen occasionally but I am not convinced that that is what we are taking about here.


i thought that is how he meant it but i may be wrong


----------



## growingvegetables (22 Aug 2012)

beany_bot said:


> Your opening line "*Facts - cyclists are allowed to cycle two abreast. No question. No argument." *Do you really think that attitude is helping cyclist/driver relations?


No attitude - just the Highway Code. 



beany_bot said:


> ... your just a trouble maker end of. And clearly one of those cyclists who deliberatly make it as difficult to pass as possible. And then scream at shout because a car passed you too close. You look for trouble and are bad for the roads no matter what your on. I've no time for people like you,


Let me guess the colour of your van? It wouldn't be that colour that we all know goes with grotesque misjudgement of distance, combined with aggrieved and wild accusations about screaming and shouting, troublemaking, looking for trouble, being bad for the roads .... aye and all the rest of the trolling rubbish? 



beany_bot said:


> I'm a good and courteous driver who has never been in an accident in 30 years and who cares about vulnerable roads users.


And if you happen to come up behind behind me, cycling alongside my daughter who is just learning a bit of confidence on the road, and if you behave as you've described yourself behaving, I think I'll be the judge of that. Probably fair to say that your convenience is the last of my concerns, and that "good and courteous" are unlikely to form part of my vocabulary.

And as for attitude, have a wee look at yours.


----------



## beany_bot (22 Aug 2012)

growingvegetables said:


> No attitude - just the Highway Code.


It says "No questions, No arguments" in the highway code does it? wow I really must get a newer copy...that was the part I referred to as an "attitude" not the fact that cyclist are allowed to cycle 2 a breast which no one is denying.




growingvegetables said:


> Probably fair to say that your convenience is the last of my concerns


 
There it is. right there mate. Thats the attitude. Absolutely moronic.
So a drivers convenience is the last of your concerns BUT your own convenience is?

How about sharing the road and being courteous? trying to take other people into consideration?
There is nothing wrong with my attitude, I have a balanced one of fairness and thoughtfulness to all road users regardless of what mode of transport I am on (and no I don't own a van but plus marks for stereotyping there...)

*ONCE AGAIN* (sigh) I have nothing against riding 2 a breast (I do it myself).
I have a problem with certain people who will do it deliberately for extended periods of time, when unnecessary clearly to deliberately antagonise motorists. making passing deliberately dangerous. *or in your words mate people who have the attitude of (and I quote) "your convenience is the last of my concerns"*


----------



## beany_bot (22 Aug 2012)

1997730 said:


> The order goes my safety, your safety, my convenience, your convenience.



...speechless...


----------



## srw (22 Aug 2012)

beany_bot said:


> ...speechless...


 Whereas your order goes "my convenience, my safety, your safety, your convenience". I think I, and most people, will rather prefer Adrian's order.


----------



## dawesome (22 Aug 2012)

beany_bot said:


> ...speechless...


 
You think your convenience takes priority over vulnerable road users' safety?

Why not just leave home earlier so you don't take stupid risks?


----------



## beany_bot (22 Aug 2012)

dawesome said:


> You think your convenience takes priority over vulnerable road users' safety?
> 
> Why not just leave home earlier so you don't take stupid risks?


 
Don't be such a moron, when did I say anything to that effect what so ever you troll. I was speechless because I like to think that I think of other people first, me second, whether that is to do with safety or convenience. I would have hoped other people do too.

Im deleting my account now, I have no interest socialising with people who so openly think of themselves and their needs before anyone else. I take it you three wouldn't hold a door open for an elderly woman, or let someone out of a lay by because you put and I quote "my convenience then your convenience" or even worse "your convenience is the last of my concerns".

Have a look back through my posts, not once have I said anything to indicate that I am a bad or thoughtless driver or cyclist. I am genuinely upset that having re-taken up cycling, this is the image I have been given of the community. 

I hope I never meet you on the road, or in life. Goodbye.


----------



## theclaud (22 Aug 2012)

It's been quite a week for enflouncements!


----------



## srw (22 Aug 2012)

beany_bot said:


> Have a look back through my posts, not once have I said anything to indicate that I am a bad or thoughtless driver or cyclist.


 


beany_bot said:


> If I am driving country roads and come up behind 2 a breast cyclists I give a very gentle toot to let them know I am there


 
That covers thoughtless. I don't think anyone's talked about bad.

Enflouncement marks? 3 out of 10 - a couple knocked off for not lasting the course.


----------



## dawesome (22 Aug 2012)

I think you lot are perfectly beastly for disagreeing with me and I hope you go into a room and forget what you went in there for and that's blimming swearing you stupid fat head bottoms!


----------



## Nigel-YZ1 (22 Aug 2012)




----------



## Nigel-YZ1 (22 Aug 2012)

1998157 said:


> I think you may be a little late there.


 
True. As long as everyone is friends again now though


----------



## ianrauk (22 Aug 2012)

2 hours and still here then?

Still waiting for the google map of this 5 mile road that you mentioned that has no overtaking opportunities for cars.


----------



## ianrauk (22 Aug 2012)

1998316 said:


> Ah with your privileged information you are spoiling us.


 

Not really privileged .
He has 'online' on his avatar.


----------



## dellzeqq (22 Aug 2012)

ianrauk said:


> Not really privileged .
> He has 'online' on his avatar.


----------



## theclaud (22 Aug 2012)

ianrauk said:


> 2 hours and still here then?


 
Ah! The Lingering Flounce with Double-Back Lunge Option. It sounds impressive, but it's cheap showmanship, beloved of those who lack the panache and focus for the less complex but far more stately Parthian Enflouncement.


----------



## theclaud (22 Aug 2012)

User3094 said:


> I think you will find its a "faux", possibly a "petticoat".


I defer, as ever, to the _Arbiteur des Flonces_!


----------



## benb (22 Aug 2012)

beany_bot said:


> Don't be such a moron, when did I say anything to that effect what so ever you troll. I was speechless because I like to think that I think of other people first, me second, whether that is to do with safety or convenience. I would have hoped other people do too.
> 
> Im deleting my account now, I have no interest socialising with people who so openly think of themselves and their needs before anyone else. I take it you three wouldn't hold a door open for an elderly woman, or let someone out of a lay by because you put and I quote "my convenience then your convenience" or even worse "your convenience is the last of my concerns".
> 
> ...


 
Meh, I give that 4/10 max. Too soon between first post and last, and not nearly enough vitriol.

Cheerio.


----------



## glasgowcyclist (22 Aug 2012)

1997316 said:


> Yeah right. When have you ever had a car behind you and didn't know it was there?


 
A couple of weeks back I got the fright of my life when I heard someone shout "Roadie poof!" in my right ear from one of these (it was my mate)..




Renault Twizy Technic by kenjonbro, on Flickr


I don't percieve a short toot from a driver as aggressive, only informative. If he leans on the horn, that's another story but it's entirely acceptable to give a short toot as an indicator of presence.
Why does this upset some people?


GC


----------



## dawesome (22 Aug 2012)

I just had that! In Pottergate I filtered in front of a white van and it tooted. I ignored it because I am a bit like Ghandi, then the driver shouted "Bloody cyclists". I still didn't respond because in many ways I am similar to Jesus, then he shouted my name and it turned out to be my mate Daynsey!

Amazing story.


----------



## david k (22 Aug 2012)

srw said:


> Whereas your order goes "my convenience, my safety, your safety, your convenience". I think I, and most people, will rather prefer Adrian's order.


please dont speak for me


----------



## theclaud (22 Aug 2012)

david k said:


> please dont speak for me


 
He said "most people" not "some one-man awkward squad on Cyclechat".


----------



## StuAff (22 Aug 2012)

dellzeqq said:


>


You'll be wanting a pic of him brandishing a crucifix the next time someone mentions mudguards......


----------



## StuAff (22 Aug 2012)

david k said:


> please dont speak for me


He was speaking for himself and expressing an opinion that, judging by responses to date, is in line with that of at least several others.


----------



## theclaud (22 Aug 2012)

Has the flonceur made a reappearance yet, or did I wrong him? Perhaps he knows how to make an exit after all...


----------



## growingvegetables (23 Aug 2012)

beany_bot said:


> vacuous dangerous cr@p.


Damn - the idiot has flounced. Pity - it could have been fun to see him juggle this one. But maybe the little mini-me somebody (david_k) who liked his post can shed some light. 

- Leeds ring road. 2-3 mile tailback of VERY slow moving traffic.

- In the middle of the tailback, two guys pushing a tandem. The stoker (for david_k, the guy on the back) walking on the *left* of the bike and pushing the rear handlebars, and the pilot (me, the guy on the front, again for david_k) walking on the *right* side of the tandem, pushing the front handlebars, and steering. Taking up at least a metre and a half of the lane - often more.

- Pilot (me) is thoroughly ****ing p*ssed off because well over half the drivers who do manage to pass damn near take my kidneys out with their wing mirrors. Pilot (me) says not a single word, not a ****ing whisper. Afik, stoker is entirely unaware.

Questions for beany_bot (if the brainless idiot hadn't flounced) and mini-me david_k.

- are the tandem riders/walkers correct to take up at least 1.5 metres of the lane?
- are any motorists justified in passing so close that the front rider has to bellydance to protect his kidneys, so that their progress (?) is unimpeded?


----------



## gavintc (23 Aug 2012)

User13710 said:


> No such thing as a gentle toot or ting IMHO.


 
I advise you not to cycle in France or Italy (and possibly other countries) as a friendly toot to inform a cyclist that a car is present is very common.


----------



## Hawk (28 Aug 2012)

All Beany_Bot was saying was that on narrow country roads, cycling two-abreast where the rightmost cyclist is very near the centreline means that even if a driver moves as far right as possible when overtakking at the safest stretch of road, he will leave only maybe a foot or less of space between the cyclist and his vehicle. There are narrow country roads where this is the case for many miles. If the cyclists moved to single file then the driver, again moving as far right as possible when overtaking, would be able to leave a more satisfactory 3 feet of space.

I don't think it was fair to be rude to him, to call him a poor/impatient driver etc.

And I do think it is possible to be inconsiderate by cycling 2-abreast in some situations despite it being apparently legal all the time. I'd hope cyclists in extreme such situations would be prosecuted for inconsiderate cycling.

I say this as a cyclist who doesn't drive.


----------



## Theseus (28 Aug 2012)

Hawk said:


> I'd hope cyclists in extreme such situations would be prosecuted for inconsiderate cycling.


 
Is there such an offence?

Is there one for inconsiderate moterists as well?

If so, the local police around here will have a field day.


----------



## Hawk (28 Aug 2012)

Touche said:


> Is there such an offence?
> 
> Is there one for inconsiderate moterists as well?
> 
> If so, the local police around here will have a field day.


 
http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1988/52/section/3ZA



2008882 said:


> This all presupposes that the overtaking driver does indeed move as far over as possible, rather than giving the customary 1 foot clearance.


 
I think that's what Beany meant...


----------



## Hawk (28 Aug 2012)

2008945 said:


> Sorry I haven't managed to convey exactly how unlikely I find this eventuality.


 
http://goo.gl/maps/C8MtY
http://goo.gl/maps/XpWl8
http://goo.gl/maps/f6jgT

If you sit two abreast on these roads, (particularly the second and third), there is no way an overtaking car can give 3ft of room.

If you sit single file, cars will often not be delayed at all.

All of these roads are cycling routes near me, one is an extremely popular training hill, the other is a key commuter route, the last is a NCN


----------



## srw (28 Aug 2012)

Hawk said:


> If you sit two abreast on these roads, (particularly the second and third), there is no way an overtaking car can give 3ft of room.
> 
> If you sit single file, cars will often not be delayed at all.


 
If a car is not delayed on that last one when passing a cyclist the driver really ought to be shot.


----------



## Feastie (28 Aug 2012)

There are lots of country roads around here (60mph speed limit roads I should add) where I've been stuck crawling along in my car at 10mph for what feels like AGES, all because cyclists are riding next to each other for no real reason, and it's not possible to overtake. Also a lot of the corners on this road are pretty blind in the summer when the hedges have grown out and not every driver is looking for cyclists... so cycling right in the middle of the road where you're literally impossible to avoid is stupidly risky. I only look for cyclists because A) I cycle and B) I'm used to seeing them on this road. Lots of tourists use the roads as well, however, who may not do either. Assuming that all drivers are on max alert for cyclists completely blocking the road around the corner is unrealistic.
It is inconsiderate to the max and essentially just being a twat, IMO.

I always feel like doing some pointed beeping to get the message across that they're not giving me any room to pass, but I'm paranoid that it'll make them jump and fall off their bikes or something. Irritating idiots that they are, I don't really want to run them over.


----------



## Nigel-YZ1 (28 Aug 2012)

srw said:


> If a car is not delayed on that last one when passing a cyclist the driver really ought to be shot.


 
"Here lies Joe Bloggs. Executed for giving too much room to a cyclist"


----------



## srw (28 Aug 2012)

Feastie said:


> ... cyclists are riding next to each other for no real reason, and it's not possible to overtake. ... not every driver is looking for cyclists... so cycling right in the middle of the road where you're literally impossible to avoid is stupidly risky. I only look for cyclists because A) I cycle and B) I'm used to seeing them on this road. Lots of tourists use the roads as well, however, who may not do either. Assuming that all drivers are on max alert for cyclists completely blocking the road around the corner is unrealistic... always feel like doing some pointed beeping to get the message across that they're not giving me any room to pass, ... Irritating idiots that they are,


 I'll leave the re-education exercise to someone else this time, but Feastie - you might want to read the thread.



Nigel-YZ1 said:


> "Here lies Joe Bloggs. Executed for giving too much room to a cyclist"


 OK - a firing squad might perhaps be a bit strong. But did you click the link? It's a narrow, straight single-track road with good sightlines. In the absence of any obstruction, a car could happily and safely do 40mph. I rather hope that every would expect a car do be doing rather less than 40mph before passing a cyclist with the foot or so room that the road would give them.


----------



## Feastie (28 Aug 2012)

2009119 said:


> 60mph with blind corners. How sensible does that sound?


 
I know, it's stupid, but many people drive along it at that speed. See the speed limit, go the speed limit and all that. I avoid cycling on it like the plague, but it is the main road/route and also the only flat one so a lot of people do cycle down there.



srw said:


> I'll leave the re-education exercise to someone else this time, but Feastie - you might want to read the thread..


 
No need to be condescending, of course I've read the thread. You might want to read my reply... but clearly you must have done in order to reply to it, so there's no point in me making a comment quite so pointless(!).


----------



## growingvegetables (28 Aug 2012)

Feastie said:


> .... all because cyclists are riding next to each other *for no real reason*


I must remember to install an enormous neon sign on my back when cycling 2 abreast - "Take care, I am cycling 2 abreast with my considerably less experienced daughter, to protect her and build her confidence."

It sounds to me like you're making some pretty big assumptions?

What would you think of a tandem being walked up a hill? Guy who was on the back walking on the left of the bike, at least a foot from the road edge; guy who was on the front, walking on the right of the bike, in the traffic lane - at risk of his kidneys being taken out by car mirrors skimming by? Taking up at least 1.5 metres of the lane?

Guessing you'd think there's "no real reason" for such odd behaviour? Go on - have a go


----------



## Hawk (28 Aug 2012)

growingvegetables said:


> I must remember to install an enormous neon sign on my back when cycling 2 abreast - "Take care, I am cycling 2 abreast with my considerably less experienced daughter, to protect her and build her confidence."
> 
> It sounds to me like you're making some pretty big assumptions?
> 
> ...


 
Riding next to your inexperienced daughter is a decent reason. Two experienced roadies 2abreast with no good reason on some of the roads I've posted above, whilst being aware of traffic behind, is still inappropriate though.


----------



## srw (28 Aug 2012)

2009869 said:


> Have you considered that it might be specifically to stop drivers from overtaking?


Only if he's actually read the thread he's replying to...


----------



## Feastie (28 Aug 2012)

growingvegetables said:


> I must remember to install an enormous neon sign on my back when cycling 2 abreast - "Take care, I am cycling 2 abreast with my considerably less experienced daughter, to protect her and build her confidence."
> 
> It sounds to me like you're making some pretty big assumptions?
> 
> ...


 
I was giving an example from my experience, in which there was no discernable reason. I didn't mean to imply that there's never ever a single reason in which people might cycle two abreast or be jutting out into the road (and sorry that I was not more clear, I didn't think to list exceptions). I only meant that the times I've seen it, a reason has not been evident! It wasn't meant to be an assumption about anything, just a little moan about what's happened to me in the past.

I've never been in a situation where somebody has been cycling that way with a child, but of course that would be perfectly fine. If somebody is protecting another vulnerable person I don't think you'd get many complaints from anybody. The 5 or 6 occasions this has happened to me, it's been lycra clad and helmeted adult men on road bikes with a lot of space to move and a straight, clear road with enough room for me to over take safely if they just went single file!


----------



## Hawk (28 Aug 2012)

2009869 said:


> Have you considered that it might be specifically to stop drivers from overtaking?


 

Yes. I am aware of primary position and its intentions; and I agree that two-abreast is effectively an extension of riding primary. As you later have a go at me over my reading of this thread, I do hope you looked at my three googlemap links to roads [you were quoted in said post after all] where this would not be the case and where riding two abreast would only impede traffic flow and at best would reduce cyclist safety. But you have yet to acknowledge a change of heart from "I find this situation extremely unlikely" or otherwise explain why you disagree with me?

And indeed, for large groups, two abreast halves the length of the group on the road and halves the time spent overtaking and thus the distance required to safely overtake. 




srw said:


> Only if he's actually read the thread he's replying to...


Thanks........ I would hope that you had read my reply, where I linked a few roads near me where cycling two abreast constantly would only impede traffic flow, and would be able to ascertain that I was indeed aware of the content of the thread.



2009964 said:


> Have you thought of getting a single file width car?


 
Do you not think that's a bit of a snobby comment? The car has as much right to the road as we cyclists do. If a car UNNECESSARILY held you up, you would be unhappy, just as drivers are unhappy at being UNNECESSARILY held up. Sure, we don't always see eye to eye as to what is "necessary". Do you agree that cycling two abreast on at least one of the roads I have linked, whilst traffic sat behind you for miles on end, would be unhelpful?


----------



## growingvegetables (28 Aug 2012)

Feastie said:


> it's been lycra clad and helmeted adult men on road bikes with a lot of space to move and a straight, clear road with enough room for me to over take safely if they just went single file!


Hmmm - so your convenience (and assumptions!) take priority? Not being rude ... just asking.

But you *ducked my question* about the tandem walkers. So come on - the guy on the back has high viz and helmet, both are grown men (but no, neither do lycra).

What's your reading of the situation? "Two adult men with a tandem, with a lot of space to move, easy to walk single file, well into the grass verge, leaving a straight, clear road with enough room for me to over take safely if they just went single file!" - would that be fair?


----------



## Hawk (28 Aug 2012)

growingvegetables said:


> Hmmm - so your convenience (and assumptions!) take priority? Not being rude ... just asking.


 
My safety, your safety, your convenience, my convenience.

As a cyclist 2-abreast on such roads as I have linked....
Going single file would probably increase my safety, not affect your safety.
Single file would be extremely convenient for you, and it would not inconvenience me.

There is ABSOLUTELY no reason not to go single file.
If a car driver is going to close pass you, he'd have flown past you when you were doubled up without a safe distance.

Going single file at least GIVES A CHANCE for a safe overtake.

As for your tandem question, I don't know! I wouldn't expect cyclists to go on a grass verge though. Is one person either side of the tandem because it's necessary to balance it?


----------



## Hawk (28 Aug 2012)

2010194 said:


> Exactly, as much as in not a greater right. As for unnecessarily holding each other up, I find roads cluttered up with slow moving vehicles all the time. Without them I could get about the place quicker. The overwhelming majority of them have no one sitting in the left hand side of the car but there they are expecting all that width.


 
If they could easily reduce their car down to single file when they didn't need to carry passengers, I'm sure they would. Two cyclists two-abreast have exactly this capability.

I'm not looking at the big picture of "you hold up cars" "no cars hold me up"; if we can work together EACH TIME WE MEET to the benefit of everyone on the roads, then everyone gets everywhere quicker. In THE PARTICULAR SITUATIONS being considered, the car's width and the fact they hold you up sometimes is irrelevant.

Once again, would you cycle two abreast on all the roads I have just linked, with traffic you were aware of sitting behind you for miles on end?


----------



## Saluki (28 Aug 2012)

GrasB said:


> The *advice* is to ride no more than 2 abreast & not on narrow or busy roads. Legally I don't think there's anything stopping a group from riding in such a manner to take up all the lane, but that's hardly the polite thing to do.


 
Rule 66 of the highway code that.
I looked it up as I had some horrible woman lean on her horn for so long we thought that she'd dropped dead on it. Impatient cow in a Merc. My Dad always used to say "Where there's a Merc, there's a berk". It rang true today. We were 2 abreast on a dead straight, very quiet, wide country road. No sooner had numpty woman passed us she slammed on her anchors and then turned hard right into her drive. We had to brake to avoid her as we were not actually hanging about.
We reckon that she must have needed a wee, alternatively she must be one of those who think that they own the road.


----------



## Hawk (28 Aug 2012)

2010223 said:


> Oh sorry but I really can't be arsed to look at your links, we are discussing a matter of principle not individual instances.


 
Well not really, Beany said something equating to "there are some situations where 2 abreast ONLY holds up car drivers and does not enhance cycle safety". You proceeded to rebut him, suggesting your view is "2 abreast is fine, all the time". I am trying to work out why you might think that.

Could you summarise your view on cycling 2-abreast? "OK all the time", "appropriate the vast majority of the time", "sometimes helpful"..?


----------



## Hawk (28 Aug 2012)

2010276 said:


> Did I?
> 
> OK all of the time seems a reasonable starting point if you want me to pick one of your rules.


 
So on a narrow straight where being single file would allow a driver to overtake leaving 3ft of room; you'd still cycle two abreast and force them to wait behind or close pass? (I know you previously said such a situation is "unlikely" but if you don't want to look at the roads I thought of where this is the case, I can only assure you this situation does arise not too infrequently).


----------



## growingvegetables (28 Aug 2012)

For Hawk and Feastie - sorry, lads, but you failed. Think about "your convencience".

First - when you're driving up behind me riding 2 abreast, you haven't a bloody clue which of my children I'm cycling with ... the experienced cyclists or the inexperienced, or whether it's my ex-partner or my new partner, or .... anybody.

Second - there's a simple reason for the "bizarre" tandem question - *the stoker was blind* and the pair of us were manipulating the tandem to avoid him treading on my heels and losing his footing, to help me guide the bike as his white stick round the drain covers and gunk.

Looks like you didn't even think about it? Bit like the idiots who tried taking my kidneys out by passing so close that I was bellydancing? And I couldn't say a word, without freaking out my mate?


*Bottom line* - it's not for you, wanting to overtake, to judge the sanity or otherwise of the guys being overtaken. You wait until you can do it safely. End of.

OK - I know there's another bottom line. That I never cycle 2 abreast to p!$$ drivers off - only for good reason. But you cannot know that, and can't make assumptions.


----------



## Nigel-YZ1 (28 Aug 2012)

2009141 said:


> All the time the majority see the words "Speed limit" and read "speed target" they clearly need to be set much lower on such roads.


 
Round here speed limit = target then add 10mph.


----------



## Feastie (28 Aug 2012)

growingvegetables said:


> Hmmm - so your convenience (and assumptions!) take priority? Not being rude ... just asking.
> 
> But you *ducked my question* about the tandem walkers. So come on - the guy on the back has high viz and helmet, both are grown men (but no, neither do lycra).
> 
> What's your reading of the situation? "Two adult men with a tandem, with a lot of space to move, easy to walk single file, well into the grass verge, leaving a straight, clear road with enough room for me to over take safely if they just went single file!" - would that be fair?


 
To be honest I'm not 100% sure how this is a similar situation, and I only didn't answer it because the answer didn't seem relevant (also I was in a rush!). If people are walking, running, pushing something or whatever, they can't really lessen their width by much with any ease. I mean, I think what you describe would be an unusual situation as the general instinct of people is to walk on the verge and have their bike on the road to keep a barrier between themselves and the traffic (and also it's easy for you to walk on a verge but the bike pretty much has to be on tarmac to be easy to move), but even doing what you say, they wouldn't really be sticking out that far. I really do think somebody in that situation would feel naturally compelled to try to minimise the amount they were on the road, however. I run along the side of the road and it's not a nice sensation at all being a pedestrian with cars whizzing past you. I always try to stay as close to the edge as I can within reason.

Somebody pushing a bike, or even two people pushing a bike, do not take up the same amount of space as two people cycling side by side - and even if they did, it's not that easy for the pushers to change the situation! You can't split the bike in half or anything, so it's sort-of moot. It doesn't really seem like a comparable thing to me because the whole reason why people cycling two-abreast is an issue is because cycling single file for a little bit is a very easy change. To NOT make the change is a discourtesy in the same way that two people passing in the street might each move slightly aside for each other rather than have one forced to stop, or barge shoulders.



> For Hawk and Feastie - sorry, lads, but you failed. Think about "your convencience".
> 
> First - when you're driving up behind me riding 2 abreast, you haven't a bloody clue which of my children I'm cycling with ... the experienced cyclists or the inexperienced, or whether it's my ex-partner or my new partner, or .... anybody.
> 
> ...


 
^^ Also, calm down my friend! If you read any of my replies, you'll notice that I agreed with you that both of those situations were not situations in which you'd get stressed out. It's very obvious in my opinion when somebody is dressed up in the gear of an 'elite' cyclist versus when they're not. In cases of doubt, err towards caution, but your average person who has no idea how to cycle isn't going to turn up in an all-in-one on a £1000 bike. And if they do turn up in an all-in-one on 60mph road riding a £1000 bike looking 6 foot tall, I don't feel it's a misjudgement to say they're very likely to know what they're doing.
No need to go on a mini-rant when people are agreeing with you, you just end up arguing with yourself!


----------



## Nigel-YZ1 (28 Aug 2012)

I was driving down a road only a few feet wider than the car a while back. Two cyclists we're side by side ahead. I slowed down and pootled along enjoying the lovely day until the road widened a little.
The cyclists pulled over and waved me through.
I smiled, said a cheery thankyou and gave a thumbs up.
No-one died. No-one abused anyone.
The US did not have to invade the Peak District (there is oil under there, so that's a constant worry).

Just thought a nice story would help


----------



## growingvegetables (29 Aug 2012)

Feastie said:


> To be honest I'm not 100% sure how this is a similar situation


*Entirely similar*

- motorist approaching two cyclists, from behind, with no comprehension about why they're doing what they're doing.
- I'm asserting that any assumptions you make about "no discernable reason" for such behaviour may well be entirely unfounded; or quite beyond the driver's comprehension.
- and I'm also making the point that for too many people driving a car, they assume their own lack of perspicacity is an excuse for "teaching the cyclist what for".

Sorry, but I was precise about the details. Normal - two people pushing a tandem, walking on the left in the grass verge, bike just in the lane - less than 0.5 metre of the lane. Reality - two people as I described, taking at least 1.5 metre of the lane.

And you missed the details - while you had the time to read and think. 9 out of 10 drivers, actually on the road, didn't have the luxury of time to read and think. They assumed that because they couldn't discern a reason for the "odd" behaviour, they could therefore pass far too f*****g close to a guy guiding a blind guy.


----------



## Nigel-YZ1 (29 Aug 2012)

Saluki said:


> Rule 66 of the highway code that.
> I looked it up as I had some horrible woman lean on her horn for so long we thought that she'd dropped dead on it. Impatient cow in a Merc. My Dad always used to say "Where there's a Merc, there's a berk". It rang true today. We were 2 abreast on a dead straight, very quiet, wide country road. No sooner had numpty woman passed us she slammed on her anchors and then turned hard right into her drive. We had to brake to avoid her as we were not actually hanging about.
> We reckon that she must have needed a wee, alternatively she must be one of those who think that they own the road.


 
She was probably wanting to switch the thing off before the electrics broke down again.


----------



## Feastie (29 Aug 2012)

growingvegetables said:


> *Entirely similar*
> 
> - motorist approaching two cyclists, from behind, with no comprehension about why they're doing what they're doing.
> - I'm asserting that any assumptions you make about "no discernable reason" for such behaviour may well be entirely unfounded; or quite beyond the driver's comprehension.
> ...


 

Okay well I'm very sorry that happened to you, but it wasn't like it was ME that drove close to you! No idea why you're going on about it and somehow linking it in. I'm not even talking about trying to justify over taking too close to people, I never even mentioned it and I think it's very dangerous. My whole point is that I *DON'T* over take (because the cyclists have made it impossible for me to do so safely by cycling next to each other) and therefore the frustration is caused o_O Not going to repeat myself about how I think it's fine to push a bike along the side of a road and why. As for missing the details, what was I meant to do, repeat the numbers back to you?? I read your post (all of it) and I explained my response.

As for whether you want to assume that every single person cycling side by side presents a total enigma 100% of the time, it's up to you. I personally think that it's not unreasonable to make assumptions based on evidence in terms of what they're riding and what they're wearing where they're wearing very expensive professional kit and on professional bikes. As for how long you have to think about it, you've usually got a very long time because you're crawling along very slowly behind them. Although really, you don't need very long at all as a driver to figure it out, because most professional lycra is usually pretty neon and covered in logos, and it's easy to see the profile of a top spec bike!

So gripe all you want about people making dangerous over takes because you're talking about something completely different to what I'm talking about.


----------



## srw (29 Aug 2012)

2010223 said:


> Oh sorry but I really can't be arsed to look at your links, we are discussing a matter of principle not individual instances.


I, on the other hand, did. As Hawk would know if he's read the thread. And I make him dangerously wrong on number 3 (already posted), and probably wrong on 1 and 2. In each case a car will need to slow down to overtake.


----------



## Lurker (29 Aug 2012)

growingvegetables said:


> .... Bottom line - it's not for you, wanting to overtake, to judge the sanity or otherwise of the guys being overtaken. You wait until you can do it safely. End of.
> 
> OK - I know there's another bottom line. That I never cycle 2 abreast to p!$$ drivers off - only for good reason. But you cannot know that, and can't make assumptions.


 
This ^^^^^^


----------



## Hawk (29 Aug 2012)

srw said:


> I, on the other hand, did. As Hawk would know if he's read the thread. And I make him dangerously wrong on number 3 (already posted), and probably wrong on 1 and 2. In each case a car will need to slow down to overtake.


 
I agree with you and I did see your post - how does riding two abreast for miles on end make a difference there though?


----------



## Pedrosanchezo (29 Aug 2012)

Guys this is an interesting thread. There are a few differences in opinion though and i don't think that a middle ground will be found TBH.

IMO it's in all of our interests to read the situation (or the road) as we experience it. 

If we choose to ride 2 abreast regardless of the road situation then i would personally consider this potentially dangerous. Mostly to the cyclist. Some roads and situations will simply not lend itself to safely doing so. Some will but by no means all. 

If a pair of cyclists stay two abreast, for example going round a blind corner, how can they be sure that some driver is going to come round the same corner with caution? I believe the mistake with this is thinking that you have as much right to this position on the road as a motorist. This is entirely correct. Though i am sure i would never do it because i simply don't trust my life with some random driver whom i have no idea how alert, awake or competent behind the wheel they are. As the cyclist, YOU are going to be the one who gets hurt. The driver can be sent to jail and learn his lesson but you may well still be dead!! For this reason i would ALWAYS side with caution. You also have no idea what is coming the other way and if said driver cannot stop in time and there is a car coming the other way, you will likely find that once again the cyclist will be the one who comes off worse. 

I'd far rather a stupid "near pass" than a driver running me over because they were driving like idiots and i was in the primary position (two abreast) without considering the possible risks. 

Cyclists have as much right to the road but the same road is a lot less forgiving. Be safe.


----------



## growingvegetables (29 Aug 2012)

Feastie said:


> My whole point is that I *DON'T* over take (because the cyclists have made it impossible for me to do so safely by cycling next to each other) and therefore the frustration is caused


 
Feastie – I'm not trying to jump down your throat, and certainly not cast aspersions on your driving. I'm just trying to point out how easily and quickly an assumption of “motor vehicle priority” slips casually into discourse ----- nothing personal, honest! 

Just a few quotes from the thread
“cyclists ride two a breast, *deliberately, to antagonise*.”
“*deliberately* for extended periods of time, *when unnecessary *clearly to deliberately antagonise motorists.”
“I'd hope cyclists in extreme such situations would be prosecuted for *inconsiderate cycling*.”
“*If you sit single file, cars will often not be delayed at all*.”
“because cyclists are riding next to each other *for no real reason*, and it's not possible to overtake.”
“It is *inconsiderate* to the max”
“Riding next to your inexperienced daughter is *a decent reason*. Two experienced roadies 2abreast* with no good reason *on some of the roads I've posted above, whilst being aware of traffic behind, is still *inappropriate* though.”
“the times I've seen it, *a reason has not been evident*!”
“If somebody is protecting another vulnerable person I don't think you'd get many complaints from anybody.”
“There is ... *no reason not to go single file*.”


My emphases - in my roundabout way, I'm trying to make the point that it's all too easy (for all of us) to let a casual assumption of motor vehicle priority slip by insidiously. I guess it's clear that I'm uncomfortable.

Cyclists should “never ride more than two abreast”. That's clear enough - *all cyclists can cycle* (almost) *all the time two abreast*. They don't need any reason to do it, no more reason than that it's a simple and natural way of cycling sociably. Perfectly legal. Acceptable - hey, and it's bloody good fun; I enjoy cycling with a partner or two.

[Digressions​
there's nothing wrong with being willing to add some courtesy, and pull in to single file to allow vehicles to pass. But that is an extra gesture, that I MAY give (and usually do), at a time of my choice, depending on my assessment of my (or my cycling partner's) safety. Driver impatience is the last of my concerns.
and my (or my cycling partner's) safety is my priority.]
 
But how easily did *drivers'* perceptions of cyclists only being permitted to go two abreast, if they have a *“decent”* reason slip into the thread, with a fair sprinkling of "indecent" reasons thrown in? Despite drivers not having the information to make an informed judgement about the cyclists in front of them?

Hey - there are limitations. Cyclists *should* “ride in single file on narrow or busy roads and when riding round bends.” And that reads very differently, depending on the assumptions we bring to it.

If riding two abreast is a perfectly natural, sociable way to cycle, acceptable and legal, it means - “Watch out – there are places you don't do it. Single track country roads with passing places? A-roads with a heavy volume of mixed traffic (including lorries and buses)? Bends where visibility is restricted? Use your bl**dy head, mate - there's places it's just not safe!” Criterion – safety.

BUT – if we start with the “careless language” that slipped in (cyclists need to have a discernible reason, two abreast is deliberate antagonism and wilful obstruction, and the like)? Then "narrow" means anything less than a motorway carriageway's width; my car/van counts as "busy"; even the gentlest high visibility curve counts as a "bend". Criterion – driver priority and convenience.
 
Guess it's clear what assumptions I bring to it!


----------



## Hawk (3 Sep 2012)

User said:


> That's inconsiderate *driving* - not cycling. You can't be done for motoring offences when using a bicycle.


 
Sorry, wrong link

http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1988/52/section/29 for careless
http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1988/52/section/28 for dangerous


----------



## Hawk (3 Sep 2012)

2019592 said:


> Note that tricky word "reasonable"


 
Thanks for another patronising post that fails to address any of the counterarguments I brought up earlier.

I maintain that it there are some circumstances when it is unreasonable to ride 2-abreast for prolonged periods of time. I have already explained these circumstances above but you


2010223 said:


> really can't be arsed to look at your links


 
I don't think we'll agree on this and, with respect, I don't think we'll even get a constructive debate out of it with an attitude such as yours; so I once again bow out of this thread (as I had quietly done previously until User asked me to clarify a technical point/"typo" I brought up earlier.)

All the best


----------



## growingvegetables (3 Sep 2012)

Hawk said:


> I maintain that it there are some circumstances when it is unreasonable to ride 2-abreast for prolonged periods of time.


So .... law can be invoked when it's shown *OBJECTIVELY* that the riding 2-abreast is careless/dangerous. No probs.

But you're extending this to cover "circumstances when it is unreasonable".

OK - when is it "unreasonable"? More to the point - when is it *reasonable*?


----------



## Pedrosanchezo (3 Sep 2012)

This seems safe enough, right?? 


View: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4EQUlXawRBE


----------



## Theseus (4 Sep 2012)

Pedrosanchezo said:


> This seems safe enough, right??
> View: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4EQUlXawRBE


 
Not quite sure what this has to do with the subject under discussion. With it not being on UK roads.


----------



## Pedrosanchezo (4 Sep 2012)

Touche said:


> Not quite sure what this has to do with the subject under discussion. With it not being on UK roads.


Just trying to bring a bit of humour to the thread.  
I'll go back outside.


----------



## Hawk (4 Sep 2012)

growingvegetables said:


> So .... law can be invoked when it's shown *OBJECTIVELY* that the riding 2-abreast is careless/dangerous. No probs.
> 
> But you're extending this to cover "circumstances when it is unreasonable".
> 
> OK - when is it "unreasonable"? More to the point - when is it *reasonable*?


 
I agree with your points.

I think in general it is reasonable, but there are some cases when it is BLATANTLY unreasonable; this was my point above addressed to those who claim it is "reasonable all the time". I would've quite been up for a constructive debate as to where to draw the line in fact.

I think being "selfless" is a good start. Everyone is entitled to a safe journey so where 2-abreast keeps us safer, it is reasonable.

After that, I think we all need to see our journeys as equal. It would be unreasonable to refuse to accept 2-3 seconds of delay (slowing to slot in to single file) to prevent several minutes of delay to trailing vehicles (whether they be car, HGV, motorcycle or just faster cyclists).

Again, a "common sense" approach whereby we can see* the point of view of other vehicles and act accordingly* at all times on the road - whether that be to move to intentionally cause insignificant delay by, for example, moving to primary before a driver might want to be squeezing by when unsafe, or moving to single file to make it easier to overtake on a country road when it is safe.

What I really despise on the roads is any road user thinking they are superior - we see it all the time, for example: "You don't have a say on the roads because we pay for them", MGIF attitudes and SMIDGAF incidents. All us regular cyclists know such an attitude is counterproductive to both road safety and general harmony on the roads, so why do _some_ cyclists fling this attitude back at car drivers with 2abreast riding when it is CLEARLY unreasonable, red light jumping (as the "laws don't apply to us", because we're obviously superior?) and the like.


----------



## mcshroom (4 Sep 2012)

There's a local road shut round my way (a house collapsed) so the traffic in the main road is jammed solid each evening. This is always a pain as a large number of rat runners then try and drive the narrow, twisty and in places steep roads at full speed to beat the traffic jam, and these drivers are a self selecting group that include a larger than normal percentage of dangerous aggressive idiots.

After being close passed on the steep hill out of the now rat-ruined village I've taken to riding up in primary. Is this 'unreasonable'? I'd have a bet that the drivers behind think it is.

You can squeeze a car and bike through if they both cooperate, and I usually do, but I refuse to have these queue jumpers putting me in more danger.


----------



## growingvegetables (4 Sep 2012)

Eeeeh, Hawk - we're getting there, oh so slowly, but it's like drawing teeth. 

There's a great chunk in the middle of your posting ....... hey, I like the way you balance "selfless" cycling with assertiveness - like taking primary. And there's any number of situations when riding 2-abreast is no more than exactly the same assertiveness - laying claim to a safe space.

But then ...... you lost me, big time. 


Hawk said:


> What I really despise on the roads is any road user thinking they are superior - we see it all the time, for example: "You don't have a say on the roads because we pay for them", MGIF attitudes and SMIDGAF incidents.


OK .... bit of a red herring, imho? Nothing whatsoever to do with riding 2-abreast? Or have I missed something?



Hawk said:


> why do _some_ cyclists fling this attitude back at car drivers *with 2abreast riding when it is CLEARLY unreasonable*,


Huuuh?  Obvious question - unreasonable to whom?.



Hawk said:


> All us regular cyclists know such an attitude is counterproductive to both road safety and general harmony on the roads, so why do _some_ cyclists fling this attitude back at car drivers with* 2abreast riding when it is CLEARLY unreasonable*, *red light jumping* ... and the like.


Ummmm - where's the connection? Between RLJing and riding 2-abreast? One is illegal and dangerous, the other is perfectly legal and should be treated as safe (except when it is objectively dangerous)?

With respect, there's nothing in there that suggests "regular cyclist talk", but plenty to suggest "driver-who-gets-frustrated-by-cyclists-riding-two-abreast-who-get-in-his-way" talk ...... back to that slippery slide of language again.

And then “why do _some_ cyclists fling this attitude back at car drivers with 2abreast riding when it is CLEARLY unreasonable “ ------- raises the obvious question, “Unreasonable to whom?”


----------



## Hawk (5 Sep 2012)

Sorry I think I managed to lose you there!

The last sections of my post were concerned with attitude on the road. Whilst none of those examples were directly linked to 2abreast riding, I think unnecessary 2abreast riding is an example of a "we are superior, so f**k you" attitude on the road - much as we get from motorists with MGIFs etc. What I meant was that cars sometimes display such an attitude towards cyclists - i.e MGIF or SMIDGAF incidents. The equivalent attitude from cyclists to cars would be unreasonable 2abreast riding.

"Unreasonable" can kinda be measured objectively. Assuming it's perfectly safe to ride either single file or 2abreast, we should do whichever causes the least inconvenience and delay overall to everyone involved.


----------



## growingvegetables (5 Sep 2012)

Hawk said:


> Sorry I think I managed to lose you there! etc


Aha – the dreaded thread loop worm, again. You didn't lose me - you didn't manage to follow me 

Ah well - back to a much earlier post; I'll try again .......

Picking up YOUR idea and language, Hawk – and sticking to your scenario, a place where “it's perfectly safe to ride either single file or 2abreast” (that's neat – keeps things clean and clear, on simple principles). 

*Basic fact* – cyclists can cycle two abreast. No argument, no attitude, nothing – it is just a simple fact of life.

So ... on your scenario, we're cycling along 2 abreast.

Perfectly within our rights, nothing wrong with it, nothing dangerous.
And as a matter of courtesy (you used the word “selfless” - which kinda sounds a bit saintly, but OK), I personally will happily pull back into single file to let motors past.
But that is a *courtesy*. It's an* extra*. It is a *free gift* – *which I give because I'm a nice guy*. 
It's also a free gift I only give *on my own terms and at a time of my choosing* – ain't no way I'm going to compromise my/my fellow cyclist's safety, just to satisfy another road user's convenience. 
There are dozens of GOOD reasons for keeping to cycling two abreast, for not showing the extra courtesy; all sorts – and if I put up a list, it'd take only 5 minutes for cyclists to add yet more

*That's the bottom line - the right to use the road. It includes in no sort of order*

*riding two-abreast;*
*the responsible decision to assertively ride two-abreast;*
*a healthy mix of good old-fashioned courtesy;*
*a respectful negotiation of space – respectful by cyclist and motorist;*
*and NOTHING to do with judgements of unnecessary/unreasonable by ANY but the more "vulnerable".*
Aye – but you (I think – if I'm wrong, my apologies) put riding two-abreast, adding those vague and fuzzy “slippery” words like “unncessary” and “unreasonable”, in the same sort of category

as MGIFs and SMIDGAFs? In my book, these are light-years different; they're expressions of “aggressive entitlement to OTHER road user's space and safety”.
And as RLJs? Definitely illegal, and ime almost always stupid and dangerous
Sorry, bro – we'll probably have to agree to disagree. There's no way riding two-abreast equates with those. No way.

Fwiw, if I have the slightest inkling that a motorist's come up behind, thinking “That in front is unnecessary/unreasonable”, then all my instincts of self-preservation, and protection for my friend or family member, kick in *BIG TIME*. As in ... forget the courtesies, we've got a ****-*** behind us.


----------



## Pedrosanchezo (6 Sep 2012)

Guys whilst it may be open to interpretation, it is also pretty clear on when and where 2 abreast shouldn't be used. For me this is exactly when it should NOT be considered safe. See quote then link from which it came. 


*66*

You should

keep both hands on the handlebars except when signalling or changing gear
keep both feet on the pedals
*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
not carry anything which will affect your balance or may get tangled up with your wheels or chain
be considerate of other road users, particularly blind and partially sighted pedestrians. Let them know you are there when necessary, for example, by ringing your bell if you have one. It is recommended that a bell be fitted"
http://www.direct.gov.uk/en/TravelAndTransport/Highwaycode/DG_069837


----------



## Hawk (6 Sep 2012)

growingvegetables said:


> <snip>


 
To be honest, I think we're basically saying something exceedingly similar. As for whether RLJs etc are relevant, for me they are - they are the backdrop to why being courteous is the way forward. The point is, life is better when you make an effort to be a "nice guy", this applies on the roads for sure


----------



## Phill057 (22 Sep 2012)

In my experience I have found that if you keep too far in to let them past that they will ignore you and will squeeze you and will judge that they have enough space and race past you. But will move in on the cyclist to gain extra inches. So on narrow roads and streets I will ride out further on the road so that they cannot get past. Thus making the decisions for them and prevent them passing. Be will lit up with plenty of flashing LED's and never ever go cycling with out your Florescent jacket. A lot of motorists are friendly and cortious but it is the minority that are driving far too powerful cars and have no cosideration no respect. The more of us that are out there. They will sit up and take notice.


----------



## Hawk (22 Sep 2012)

Phill057 said:


> and never ever go cycling with out your Florescent jacket.


 You must be new here....


----------



## Phill057 (29 Sep 2012)

Thank you for the welcome


----------



## Rayvon (29 Sep 2012)

Red Light said:


> If they complain to me about riding two abreast I simply point out that they too are sat there two abreast but with a (usually) empty seat rather than an occupied one. And if they didn't insist on lugging those extra seats around they would be narrow enough to overtake with no problems. Sadly most of them don't seem to understand irony.



Like it, l'll be using that one


----------

