# 7 cyclist....3 wide no wonder we are hated.



## coco69 (19 Apr 2016)

Just coming home with the boss and a road that comes off the east lancs was at a standstill.....7 bikes all decent but plodding with 3 wide at some points..why?? FFS no wonder drivers get pissed off with us at times..i was wound up myself...jesus.


----------



## shouldbeinbed (19 Apr 2016)

I thought the east lancs had a path/cycleway beside it.


----------



## coco69 (19 Apr 2016)

Over the top reaction my freind...

3 wide on a standard road is a piss take


----------



## Markymark (19 Apr 2016)

coco69 said:


> Just coming home with the boss and a road that comes off the east lancs was at a standstill.....7 bikes all decent but plodding with 3 wide at some points..why?? FFS no wonder drivers get pissed off with us at times..i was wound up myself...jesus.


Were they on the wrong side of the road? If not, who cares. The overtake is the same. The only people affected are those who would have trioed to squeeze through with oncoming traffic. If not, it makes no odds whether there's 1/2 or 3 bikes, the overtake is the same.


----------



## coco69 (19 Apr 2016)

I give up!!! 3 wide on a standard road is a piss take and thats my view...if you think different thats fine.


----------



## Rooster1 (19 Apr 2016)

three wide is out of order, are you on Strava, lets see the Flybys!


----------



## Markymark (19 Apr 2016)

coco69 said:


> I give up!!! 3 wide on a standard road is a piss take and thats my view...if you think different thats fine.


Why? What difference does it make to the overtake if there's 1, 2 or 3? Please explain?


----------



## ianrauk (19 Apr 2016)

I'm with @Markymark , if the 3 abreast is within the lane of one side of the road, then there's no problem.


----------



## coco69 (19 Apr 2016)

The question i ask myself and others is why the need for 3 wide....there is no need


----------



## Markymark (19 Apr 2016)

coco69 said:


> The question i ask myself and others is why the need for 3 wide....there is no need


But, please explain, what is the issue? Who was inconvenienced by them being 3 as opposed to 1 or 2?

Please explain.


----------



## dellzeqq (19 Apr 2016)

coco69 said:


> Just coming home with the boss and a road that comes off the east lancs was at a standstill.....7 bikes all decent but plodding with 3 wide at some points..why?? FFS no wonder drivers get pissed off with us at times..i was wound up myself...jesus.


if the lane is anything close to 4 metres it makes perfect sense.


----------



## coco69 (19 Apr 2016)

Mark....not sure what you are getting at pal
Again in my opinion 3 is a piss take ...based on what you say 5..6..7 wide is fine


----------



## Markymark (19 Apr 2016)

coco69 said:


> Mark....not sure what you are getting at pal
> Again in my opinion 3 is a piss take ...based on what you say 5..6..7 wide is fine


As many as fit in one lane. I will ask one last time to explain exactly what the problem is.

What difference does it make how many wide they are if they are in one lane for the person overtaking?


----------



## coco69 (19 Apr 2016)

Now i do give up

3 wide on a standard road with 7 cyclists plodding in cat69 opinion is a piss take...others disagree then thats cool.


----------



## coco69 (19 Apr 2016)

Mark: I will ask one last time to explain exactly what theproblem is.
Im sorry who do you think you are talking too?

If you disagree i can accept that


----------



## Markymark (19 Apr 2016)

coco69 said:


> Now i do give up
> 
> 3 wide on a standard road with 7 cyclists plodding in cat69 opinion is a piss take...others disagree then thats cool.


Ok, I've asked around 4 times to give a reason as to why but you have not provided an answer

I can only assume:

You have not understood overtaking any number of bikes if in one lane makes no difference for the person overtaking

*Edited heavily by mod!*


----------



## Mugshot (19 Apr 2016)

coco69 said:


> Now i do give up
> 
> 3 wide on a standard road with 7 cyclists plodding in cat69 opinion is a piss take...others disagree then thats cool.


Post a pic or a link to the bit of road where you were held up by the cyclists. How long do you think you were behind them, without exaggerating.


----------



## Rooster1 (19 Apr 2016)

Nice banter


----------



## Mugshot (19 Apr 2016)

Fo shizzle


----------



## Markymark (19 Apr 2016)

Don't worry, I assume the mods will delete the post shortly.

*Mod: No they edited it leaving the sensible bit!*


----------



## Rooster1 (19 Apr 2016)

For a bit of relief, head over to the "Cycling shorts, Ladies - help required!"


----------



## jefmcg (19 Apr 2016)

Was there room to safely pass a single cyclist at speed - with a 1.5 metre gap, without crossing the centre line, and without forcing the cyclist into the gutter?


----------



## Lonestar (19 Apr 2016)

We are only hated because of press bias.


----------



## growingvegetables (19 Apr 2016)

coco69 said:


> I give up!!! 3 wide on a standard road is a piss take and thats my view...if you think different thats fine.


Riding single file, with a bunch of short-tempered impatient idiots squeezing past with nary a touch on the brakes, nor a tweak of the steering .... now THAT is, at best a complacently dangerous DGAF "piss-take"; and at worst?

I trust it is not revealing that you had your rant, without (apparently) a few seconds' consideration of why the cyclists may have taken a defensive/protective road positioning?

I trust also that you don't actually mean to suggest cyclists deserve to be hated because of 7 individuals?


----------



## coco69 (19 Apr 2016)

Yes banter is good.


----------



## mjr (19 Apr 2016)

If you were in a car, if they were riding in a space-saving domino formation (2-1-2-2 in this case - the front five look like the spots on a domino) then they could look as if they were 3 abreast when they weren't.

But then again, I'm with many of the others: if they were within a lane, then I don't see a problem because motorists should change lane to overtake. If a cycle or moto wants to overtake, pip the bell or horn and the back-marker should alert the others to single out. If they're not one group, they'll probably ride at different speeds and string out soon enough anyway.


----------



## Rooster1 (19 Apr 2016)

Or revisit the same subject here "https://www.cyclechat.net/threads/riding-several-abreast.79384//"

Highway code apparently says you "shouldn't" ride more than two abreast, but it is not illegal.

Personally I think its a bit SHITTY, that's all, a bit SELFISH. IMO


----------



## coco69 (19 Apr 2016)

Highway code apparently says you"shouldn't" ride more than two abreast, but it is not illegal.

Game over!


----------



## mjr (19 Apr 2016)

Rooster1 said:


> Highway code apparently says you "shouldn't" ride more than two abreast, but it is not illegal.
> 
> Personally I think its a bit SHITTY, that's all, a bit SELFISH. IMO


But as they're likely to come off worst in a collision and far too many of my fellow motorists seem not to care enough to steer clear, then I'd like them to carry on being selfish, with my blessing. I'll wait a safe distance behind and I'm sure I'll be able to overtake soon enough. At least they're easier to pass than a tractor.


----------



## oldfatfool (19 Apr 2016)

So if there were 2 abreast but 2m apart but on the same side of the carriageway how would you react?


----------



## Lonestar (19 Apr 2016)

People are too impatient and that's the problem.MGIF.


----------



## coco69 (19 Apr 2016)

The moments gone.
I shall stick to the highway code as mentioned above..no more than 2


----------



## Yazzoo (19 Apr 2016)

Surely as long as the group remain on their lane it shouldn't matter how many abreast?

3 rather than 2 abreast would make the group a shorter/easier 'obstacle' to pass - I don't see what the problem is?


----------



## Dave7 (19 Apr 2016)

Markymark said:


> As many as fit in one lane. I will ask one last time to explain exactly what the problem is.
> 
> What difference does it make how many wide they are if they are in one lane for the person overtaking?


I feel the same as @coco69 on this............single file and cars can go past without oncoming cars having to stop & let them through. Common decency IMO.


----------



## Dayvo (19 Apr 2016)

coco69 said:


> The moments gone old fat fool
> I shall stick to the highway code as mentioned above..no more than 2



Here's something to ponder:

http://ukcyclelaws.blogspot.no/p/the-laws-according-to-highway-code.html

and from that I quote:

*Why do motorists get annoyed by cyclists two abreast?*
_There are many reasons why motorists tend to get annoyed so here are a few that I know of:
_

_They think it's harder to overtake_
_They think it's illegal_
_They think it's dangerous in general_
_They think it means cyclists are not paying attention to the road_
So how are you going to drive now around cyclists? Patiently or ignorantly? Thats too easy. I think I can guess.


----------



## glenn forger (19 Apr 2016)

They did you a favour. Made it faster and safer to overtake. So you hate them. Maybe drivings not for you?


----------



## fossyant (19 Apr 2016)

As an experienced club rider we only ever went two abreast and singled it out for cars that were struggling to get past. Three isnt great in my opinion.


----------



## outlash (19 Apr 2016)

Dave7 said:


> I feel the same as @coco69 on this............single file and cars can go past without oncoming cars having to stop & let them through. Common decency IMO.



Nah. On most single carriageway roads there isn't the room for what you're suggesting unless the riders are in the gutter.


----------



## snorri (19 Apr 2016)

Dave7 said:


> ............single file and cars can go past without oncoming cars having to stop & let them through. Common decency IMO.



 
You really mean that?


----------



## glenn forger (19 Apr 2016)

I hope dave7 doesnt drive.


----------



## Dave7 (19 Apr 2016)

glenn forger said:


> I hope dave7 doesnt drive.


Dave7 has driven for 52 years and only one accident...........and that was at dusk when the oncoming driver had no lights on.
When you have driven that long with no incidents let me know.........(if I'm still alive and kicking of course  )


----------



## Dave7 (19 Apr 2016)

snorri said:


> You really mean that?


Which part are you having trouble understanding...............common decency ??  or single file ??


----------



## glenn forger (19 Apr 2016)

Dave, what does the HC say about overtaking riders? You dont appear to know.


----------



## Dayvo (19 Apr 2016)

Dave7 said:


> Which part are you having trouble understanding...............common decency ??  or single file ??



This rider is riding single file. See how wide the driver goes. Have a guess why.


----------



## mjr (19 Apr 2016)

outlash said:


> Nah. On most single carriageway roads there isn't the room for what you're suggesting unless the riders are in the gutter.


Not even then! Standard lane width (type S2 or SU2) is 3.65m, the official dynamic envelope of a cyclist is 1.0m at sufficiently high speeds and you're meant to leave at least 1.5m clearance at speed, so even if a rider is in the gutter (handlebar almost over left kerb/edge marking), that leaves 3.65m - 2.5m = 1.15m free. An average car is a bit under 2m wide, so a motorist should wait for a gap in the oncoming traffic anyway.

A wide rural carriageway (type S2W) has 5.0m lanes, but they're much rarer - I suspect there are more sections with narrower-than-standard lanes than S2W ones even on the A road network.


----------



## Dayvo (19 Apr 2016)

Dave7 said:


> Dave7 has driven for 52 years



Driving for 52 years without giving enough room to cyclists!  

Read this: it's not too late to learn something.

As you can see from this photo *[my above post]*, cars overtaking cyclists should be on the other side of the road, just as if they were overtaking a car. It's simple really but it doesn't seem that some motorists know or understand this rule, if they did, there would be far less cars passing extremely close to cyclists and less road rage between the two groups. Below is my illustration of how not to and how to overtake a cyclist:


----------



## snorri (19 Apr 2016)

Dave7 said:


> Which part are you having trouble understanding...............common decency ??  or single file ??


I'm shocked to hear that you as a cyclist would feel comfortable about a car overtaking you without the car crossing the white line, as it would have to do in the face of oncoming traffic.
An overtaking driver carrying out that sort of stunt certainly lacks common decency and regard for the safety of other road users.


----------



## mjr (19 Apr 2016)

snorri said:


> An overtaking driver carrying out that sort of stunt certainly lacks common decency and regard for the safety of other road users.


...and if they're doing it deliberately, they should have their licence revoked, which would help free up road space both for motorists who drive to the required standard and for cyclists.


----------



## summerdays (19 Apr 2016)

*MOD NOTE: *please accept that others may have a different view point to yours, and that being rude to them is not going to convince them that your view point is correct. If you wish to change their view then try to explain your point of view persuasively!


----------



## KneesUp (19 Apr 2016)

One cyclist plus as much room as you would give a car is narrower than three cyclist plus as much room as you would give a car.


----------



## Markymark (19 Apr 2016)

Markymark said:


> Don't worry, I assume the mods will delete the post shortly.
> 
> *Mod: No they edited it leaving the sensible bit!*


To be fair, all of my post was sensible, just rude.


----------



## shouldbeinbed (19 Apr 2016)

Dave7 said:


> I feel the same as @coco69 on this............single file and cars can go past without oncoming cars having to stop & let them through. Common decency IMO.


The east lancs road is an urban commuter road between Manchester and Liverpool, it is the principal alternative to the M62 and is basically a dual carriageway with a central reservation thoughout. If you're in the path of oncoming cars, you have a hell of a bigger problem on your hands than a few people on bikes.


----------



## mjr (19 Apr 2016)

KneesUp said:


> One cyclist plus as much room as you would give a car is narrower than three cyclist plus as much room as you would give a car.


But both require overtaking by moving into the next lane right (do the maths with the figures I mentioned above if you'd like to check), so there's no practical difference to motorists in giving three cyclists as much room as they should give a car, so what's your point?


----------



## Dave7 (19 Apr 2016)

shouldbeinbed said:


> The east lancs road is an urban commuter road between Manchester and Liverpool, it is the principal alternative to the M62 and is basically a dual carriageway with a central reservation thoughout. If you're in the path of oncoming cars, you have a hell of a bigger problem on your hands than a few people on bikes.


I think you will find in the OP he said "it was a road OFF the east lancs".


----------



## shouldbeinbed (19 Apr 2016)

Dave7 said:


> I think you will find in the OP he said "it was a road OFF the east lancs".


Fair do's my apologies.


----------



## Racing roadkill (19 Apr 2016)

I think the riding 3 abreast debate, is the new helmet debate.


----------



## gavintc (19 Apr 2016)

coco69 said:


> I give up!!! 3 wide on a standard road is a piss take and thats my view...if you think different thats fine.


Why - what was the issue? It must have held you up for all of 10 seconds. I presume you would have preferred to squeeze past, pushing them into the gutter. Perhaps you should give up.


----------



## Crackle (19 Apr 2016)




----------



## mjr (19 Apr 2016)

Crackle said:


>


OMG people in buses are sitting 4-abreast. They are so SELFISH.


----------



## Dave7 (19 Apr 2016)

glenn forger said:


> Dave, what does the HC say about overtaking riders? You dont appear to know.


I dont think the HC mentions common decency. I'm not on about what is legal....I am thinking about what is best for other people......an alien concept to some (and I dont mean you  )


----------



## ufkacbln (19 Apr 2016)

Yesterday I was travelling through Surrey, and there was a tractor.... far wider than three cyclist

Should I hate Tractors

Then there was the van parked in an suburban road reducing it to one lane making it difficult to het past

Should I hate vans

Then to cap it all there was a woman in a wheelchair travelling on the road to her car making it impossible to get past ine either direction

Should I hate the disabled?

Lets get some perspective?


----------



## coco69 (19 Apr 2016)

Why use the word hate...thats a strong word thats never been used
Read the full thread please lol....i dont wear a helmet.. i use a 32 cassette. It must just be me


----------



## Dave7 (19 Apr 2016)

Dayvo said:


> Driving for 52 years without giving enough room to cyclists!
> 
> Read this: it's not too late to learn something.
> 
> ...


And from you I would learn exactly what?.....what the law is ? or how to consider other people before yourself?


----------



## growingvegetables (19 Apr 2016)

coco69 said:


> Why use the word hate...thats a strong word thats never been used
> Read the full thread please lol...


.... with or without the thread title?

Not only has it been used .... but by yourself


----------



## coco69 (19 Apr 2016)

U


growingvegetables said:


> .... with or without the thread title?
> 
> Not only has it been used .... but by yourself



That was meant as a joke to bring some humour into this


----------



## Dave7 (19 Apr 2016)

snorri said:


> I'm shocked to hear that you as a cyclist would feel comfortable about a car overtaking you without the car crossing the white line, as it would have to do in the face of oncoming traffic.
> An overtaking driver carrying out that sort of stunt certainly lacks common decency and regard for the safety of other road users.


Has anyone mentioned white lines ??
I said common decency. 
White lines ???? Broken? Single? Double?
All I am saying is "think of other road users" instead of just you are legally entitled to do.


----------



## growingvegetables (19 Apr 2016)

coco69 said:


> U
> 
> 
> That was meant as a joke to bring some humour into this


Pull the other leg. It's got bells on.


----------



## mjr (19 Apr 2016)

Dave7 said:


> All I am saying is "think of other road users" instead of just you are legally entitled to do.


It's sounding a hell of a lot like "dear cyclists, put yourself in severe danger so as not to inconvenience the poor downtrodden incompetent motorists" by the time it's reaching your keyboard, though.


----------



## mjr (19 Apr 2016)

growingvegetables said:


> Pull the other leg. It's got bells on.








Nearly time for this again. http://www.kingsmorris.co.uk/events/


----------



## GrumpyGregry (19 Apr 2016)

Fascinating that a cyclist sat in the passenger seat of a motor vehicle cannot but think like a nobber driver.

Mr Toad rides shotgun.


----------



## GrumpyGregry (19 Apr 2016)

Dave7 said:


> I feel the same as @coco69 on this............single file and cars can go past without oncoming cars having to stop & let them through. Common decency IMO.


Why does common decency towards the folk in metal cages entitle you to endanger the more vulnerable road users?


----------



## GrumpyGregry (19 Apr 2016)

Dayvo said:


> Driving for 52 years without giving enough room to cyclists!
> 
> Read this: it's not too late to learn something.
> 
> As you can see from this photo *[my above post]*, cars overtaking cyclists should be on the other side of the road, just as if they were overtaking a car. It's simple really but it doesn't seem that some motorists know or understand this rule, if they did, there would be far less cars passing extremely close to cyclists and less road rage between the two groups. Below is my illustration of how not to and how to overtake a cyclist:


Surely in Oslo that's a cyclist overtaking a drunk driver?


----------



## GrumpyGregry (19 Apr 2016)

Oh yes, btw, there is no "we". In case you've not noticed nobber drivers are prone to treat each other, and even that rare bird, the alert, able, diligent driver, just as badly as they treat more vulnerable road users.


----------



## GrumpyGregry (19 Apr 2016)

User said:


> You could consider that overtaking 20 cyclists riding as a group 2 abreast is easier than overtaking a line of 20 cyclists singled out. Unless, that is, you are happy to overtake the line singled out in the same lane.


Are the cyclists shouting "just because you are indicating doesn't make it alright!"?


----------



## coco69 (19 Apr 2016)

3 wide is a piss take ...for future reference the 7 cyclist should read the HC


----------



## GrumpyGregry (19 Apr 2016)

coco69 said:


> 3 wide is a piss take ...for future reference the 7 cyclist should read the HC


I've ridden three and four wide on an NSL dual carriageway, blockading the lane to protect riders in front of me.
I've ridden more than two abreast on a rural SC to keep the nobber driver following us from attempting a silly overtake.

It isn't a piss take. It is a cyclists way of saying "I'll determine how to manage the danger you represent to me thanks, because you will always make the wrong call. And my risk is HUGE."


----------



## glasgowcyclist (19 Apr 2016)

coco69 said:


> Just coming home with the boss and a road that comes off the east lancs was at a standstill.....7 bikes all decent but plodding with 3 wide at some points..why?? FFS no wonder drivers get pissed off with us at times..i was wound up myself...jesus.



Please see this instructional video and the folowing diagram..







It's likely that the riders were staggered as in group B so that it appeared they were three abreast from behind.

GC


----------



## coco69 (19 Apr 2016)

User said:


> You really have latched onto that HC thing, since you learned about it earlier.



I have indeed....this forum is great for being educated in not just how to do tasks....dont knock it my friend


----------



## GrumpyGregry (19 Apr 2016)

User said:


> Not all of them


Good. We can't have rowdy shout cyclists ruining the peace and quite of the land by drowning out the noise of the motors.


----------



## coco69 (19 Apr 2016)

GrumpyGregry said:


> I've ridden three and four wide on an NSL dual carriageway, blockading the lane to protect riders in front of me.
> I've ridden more than two abreast on a rural SC to keep the nobber driver following us from attempting a silly overtake.
> 
> It isn't a piss take. It is a cyclists way of saying "I'll determine how to manage the danger you represent to me thanks, because you will always make the wrong call. And my risk is HUGE."



Disagree..its a piss take


----------



## coco69 (19 Apr 2016)

User said:


> I am not knocking it, just commenting on your previous ignorance of something that really should be a bit of a Bible for any road user.



Educate me more Adrian


----------



## GrumpyGregry (19 Apr 2016)

glasgowcyclist said:


> Please see this instructional video and the folowing diagram..
> 
> View attachment 125427
> 
> ...


Passing group A is not impossible. Passing group A safely in a single overtaking manoeuvre is impossible. But who gives a sh1te when you're driving a car? The rider fourth from the front is a smug lycra clad gobshite and the world will be well rid of him.


----------



## winjim (19 Apr 2016)

What a nasty thread.


----------



## GrumpyGregry (19 Apr 2016)

coco69 said:


> Disagree..its a piss take


Then you are most probably a driver, and sadly incapable of thinking other than as one, despite riding a bike. And if not a driver you're over conditioned by our motor-centric culture. Try to think outside the steel box.


----------



## coco69 (19 Apr 2016)

Im a driver a motorcyclist..a pilot and a cyclist....not bad at decorating either


----------



## Pale Rider (19 Apr 2016)

GrumpyGregry said:


> Try to think outside the steel box.



One or two on here need to think outside the cloistered world of cycle forums.

Riding in the manner described will annoy drivers - simple matter of fact.

An annoyed driver is a dangerous driver - another simple matter of fact.

There are times to stand your ground and make your point, but that situation is not one of them.


----------



## GrumpyGregry (19 Apr 2016)

Pale Rider said:


> One or two on here need to think outside the cloistered world of cycle forums.
> 
> Riding in the manner described will annoy drivers - simple matter of fact.
> 
> ...



Neither of your matters of fact are matters of fact. Next!


----------



## mjr (19 Apr 2016)

coco69 said:


> 3 wide is a piss take ...for future reference the 7 cyclist should read the HC


And yet in


coco69 said:


> Read the full thread please lol....i dont wear a helmet.. i use a 32 cassette. It must just be me


is an admission of ignoring Rule 59 (as many of us do). Why should the magnificent 7 follow dodgy advice in the HC when @coco69 doesn't?


----------



## contadino (19 Apr 2016)

'driver' = 'cyclist' = 'other road user'


----------



## growingvegetables (19 Apr 2016)

glasgowcyclist said:


> What are you applying for?
> 
> GC


@coco69 's lost his job ... post #72


----------



## Pale Rider (19 Apr 2016)

GrumpyGregry said:


> Neither of your matters of fact are matters of fact. Next!



OK, so by extension, a wound up, impatient driver is a safe driver?

Not so, in my view, but you are entitled to your opinion.


----------



## Dayvo (19 Apr 2016)

Dave7 said:


> And from you I would learn exactly what?.....what the law is ? or how to consider other people before yourself?



I doubt you would learn anything from me.

I doubt you've learned anything from 52 years of driving.


----------



## GrumpyGregry (19 Apr 2016)

coco69 said:


> Better make that 5...


Are you going to engage with any of the counter arguments put to you by people who rides bikes... a lot?


----------



## growingvegetables (19 Apr 2016)

Pale Rider said:


> .... There are times to stand your ground and make your point, but that situation is not one of them.


To be fair, we don't know that. We only have one side of the story expressed as, shall we say, an unsympathetic rant?


----------



## GrumpyGregry (19 Apr 2016)

Pale Rider said:


> OK, so by extension, a wound up, impatient driver is a safe driver?


Take a false premise and extend it? Keep digging!

Many drivers encounter the behaviours described, understand them and don't get annoyed.
Many drivers have better ways of managing their annoyances than via driving dangerously.


----------



## Dave7 (19 Apr 2016)

Dayvo said:


> I doubt you would learn anything from me.
> 
> I doubt you've learned anything from 52 years of driving.


Do you always think you will prove your point by being nasty. 
My point was (as stated) to think of other people. Your point seems to be .....be nasty and not consider other people. 
Fine......enjoy your life.


----------



## Cuchilo (19 Apr 2016)

[QUOTE 4243692, member: 9609"]if they are 3 abreast and the out most one is just inside the white line, how do you give him 3 foot of space with the pass ?[/QUOTE]
Drive in the cycle lane .


----------



## PhilDawson8270 (19 Apr 2016)

coco69 said:


> Im a driver a motorcyclist..a pilot and a cyclist....not bad at decorating either



I'm also a driver, motorcyclist, pilot, and a cyclist. And I still disagree with you.

Are you able to say what issue was being caused by the riding of 3 abreast?


----------



## PhilDawson8270 (19 Apr 2016)

[QUOTE 4243692, member: 9609"]if they are 3 abreast and the out most one is just inside the white line, how do you give him 3 foot of space with the pass ?[/QUOTE]

This may be semantics, but something always rolled around in my mind. I was nervous of asking the question on here as I may get ganged up on. But this thread seems appropriate, and the hate of @coco69 may deflect from me a little.

BUT, cyclists say "Give as much room to overtake a cyclist as a car, use the next lane'. But with a car you're actually only giving it maybe 3 or 4ft of space in the next lane due to it's width.

For secondary position, this is half in the lane half out, and is the same space as has been given to the car?


----------



## Dayvo (19 Apr 2016)

Dave7 said:


> *And from you I would learn exactly what?*





Dave7 said:


> Do you always think you will prove your point by being nasty.
> My point was (as stated) to think of other people. Your point seems to be .....be nasty and not consider other people.
> Fine......enjoy your life.



I wasn't trying/intending to be nasty. I was replying in kind to your comment. 

The number one most important factor in driving is, IMO, to avoid hitting/damaging/injuring other road users (in whatever form of transport they may be using).

There have been a spate of serious/fatal collisions recently in professional cycling where motorbikes and cars have not given any/enough regard to the safety of the cyclists. Everyday on British roads (and all around the world) the same applies: drivers (mostly) and motorbikers giving too little room or thought for the safety for the most vulnerable of road users. 

My comment (tongue in cheek, hence the 'winking' smiley) was poking fun at you for not giving _enough _clearance to cyclists in your 52 years of driving. No malice was intended, and apologies if you felt slighted, but surely, as a cyclist _and _a motorist, I'd have thought this was glaringly obvious.


----------



## lutonloony (19 Apr 2016)

How many of the riders had 3 breasts? I've lost the plot here


----------



## Sea of vapours (19 Apr 2016)

PhilDawson8270 said:


> BUT, cyclists say "Give as much room to overtake a cyclist as a car, use the next lane'. But with a car you're actually only giving it maybe 3 or 4ft of space in the next lane due to it's width.
> 
> For secondary position, this is half in the lane half out, and is the same space as has been given to the car?



I've always interpreted that (i.e. especially when driving) as _'the same total space that a car would take up, including the gap to it'. _That's as distinct from _'pass at the same distance as you would from a car'. _In other words: act as if the cyclist takes up as much space as a car. In practice, there is no reason not to overtake as far across the road, thus as far from the cyclist, as possible - you, as the driver, lose nothing by doing this. And if you can't do that due to oncoming traffic or visibility then it's not a safe overtake anyway.


----------



## PhilDawson8270 (19 Apr 2016)

Sea of vapours said:


> And if you can't do that due to oncoming traffic or visibility then it's not a safe overtake anyway.



What if I have electrically folding mirrors so I could squeeze past


----------



## KneesUp (19 Apr 2016)

mjray said:


> But both require overtaking by moving into the next lane right (do the maths with the figures I mentioned above if you'd like to check), so there's no practical difference to motorists in giving three cyclists as much room as they should give a car, so what's your point?


My point is that whatever 'gap' is left should be between the outermost cyclist and the car, so a car overtaking three cyclists needs to be further over. Here is some crude clip art. In one image there is room to get past. In the other there is not. The gap between the car and the outer rider is the same in both.


----------



## mjr (19 Apr 2016)

KneesUp said:


> Here is some crude clip art. In one image there is room to get past. In the other there is not. The gap between the car and the outer rider is the same in both.


That car is disproportionately wide so that misleads. Standard lane width is 3.65m and typical car width is about 2m, or about 1.5 cyclists abreast. If the lanes are wide enough for 3 cyclists abreast, the other lane is wide enough to overtake with plenty of room unless one drives like a dick.


----------



## Dave7 (19 Apr 2016)

Dayvo said:


> I wasn't trying/intending to be nasty. I was replying in kind to your comment.
> 
> The number one most important factor in driving is, IMO, to avoid hitting/damaging/injuring other road users (in whatever form of transport they may be using).
> 
> ...


OK......its difficult to get thoughts/feelings across in text. We all have opinions but so long as we disagree "pleasantly" thats fine.
Enjoy your evening


----------



## KneesUp (19 Apr 2016)

mjray said:


> That car is disproportionately wide so that misleads. Standard lane width is 3.65m and typical car width is about 2m, or about 1.5 cyclists abreast. If the lanes are wide enough for 3 cyclists abreast, the other lane is wide enough to overtake with plenty of room unless one drives like a dick.


I did it quickly as my laptop battery was dying, and because I assumed you would be able to see the point without it being correctly scaled. Apparently not though.


----------



## mjr (19 Apr 2016)

KneesUp said:


> I did it quickly as my laptop battery was dying, and because I assumed you would be able to see the point without it being correctly scaled. Apparently not though.


The point is mistaken. Even if the cyclist outermost is over the white line edge, pulling into the other lane and giving a metre and a half clearance leaves the righthand side of an typical car almost a foot from the other lane edge. Why is this hard to understand?

I swear, sometimes the worst problem for cyclists are the "I'm a cyclist myself" motoring advocates.


----------



## jefmcg (19 Apr 2016)

coco69 said:


> U
> 
> 
> That was meant as a joke to bring some humour into this


I can't actually find the joke in there.


----------



## adscrim (19 Apr 2016)

mjray said:


> I swear, sometimes the worst problem for cyclists are the "I'm a cyclist myself" motoring advocates.



This. I had a nobber skim past my elbow and when I asked for more room was told than he was hard up to the white line and had nowhere else to go. He rides a bike too you know.


----------



## snorri (19 Apr 2016)

Dave7 said:


> My point was (as stated) to think of other people.


Your apparent willingness to overtake a cyclist in the face of oncoming motor traffic (post 35)suggests you think little for the safety of cyclists.


----------



## jefmcg (19 Apr 2016)

jefmcg said:


> I can't actually find the joke in there.


yeah, this got edited.



coco69 said:


> Why use the word hate...thats a strong word thats never been used


How come this bit of newspeak was left intact?


----------



## coco69 (19 Apr 2016)

I raised an opinion which has raised quite a hefty discussion.
I will not be called just because my opinion is different than yours.
I am old school and i really do wish this discussion was made in person without the power of internet and computer screens....oh i wish


----------



## Ajax Bay (19 Apr 2016)

Dave7 said:


> single file and cars can go past without oncoming cars having to stop & let them through. Common decency IMO.





Dave7 said:


> I'm not on about what is legal....I am thinking about what is best for other people.


@Dave7 , if they singled out, it would be harder for cars behind to get past as they'd, driving prudently, need more clear road. What regularly happens, with a singled out group, to cries of "Car Up!", is that the overtaking driver gets part way, sees an oncoming vehicle, and then 'cuts in' with explicit increased danger to the cyclists 'in the way'. So actually the cycling group IS possibly thinking what's best for the cars behind (a point previously made). I think for the reasons others have offered (overtaking car doesn't have to go in the other gutter), two abreast would be a bit more sensible/sensitive and achieved the objective (primary position qv), but again, the OP was behind and it may have just looked as if they were 3 abreast. Whatever, any car passing them safely would need to go well or even completely over the centre line (marked or otherwise) of the road.


GrumpyGregry said:


> It isn't a piss take. It is a cyclists way of saying "I'll determine how to manage the danger you represent to me thanks, because you will always make the wrong call. And my risk is HUGE."


As a lone rider, this danger/threat management is best achieved, in circumstances like these, by assuming the primary position whenever there is increased risk to the rider, of a car coming past without sufficient visibility to see 'round the corner'. On a single carriageway road approaching a bend I often but not always adopt the primary position (tends to depend how narrow the road is). This ensures that any driver behind desiring to overtake me, needs to make a conscious decision to pull into the lane designed for traffic coming the other way, risking - for the driver - a head on collision if he/she gets it wrong, as opposed to the cyclist in the gutter and squeezed when the overtaking driver suddenly sees a vehicle coming the other way. As soon as I can see round the bend and it's clear I'll pull back to the normal distance from the gutter/kerb.


fossyant said:


> As an experienced club rider we only ever went two abreast and singled it out for cars that were struggling to get past.


@Dave7 I'll make a guess that your cycling in a group (ie on a highway, often two abreast) has been limited. If not, on your club rides (or whatever), did everyone cycle along in single file?
What about your group riding experience @coco69 ? Has your club ride not held up traffic behind a bit? If the group was only two abreast, would you not have been so aggrevated?


----------



## coco69 (19 Apr 2016)

Hi
Sorry i know its my post but im bailing out and its going nowhere apart from a few cowardly members throwing personal comments.
Enjoy the ride...1..2..3..4..5..wide


----------



## growingvegetables (19 Apr 2016)

coco69 said:


> .... I will not be called just because my opinion is different than yours.....


Trust me - you are not "being called" because you have a different opinion.

You *ARE* being called
- for what I (and others) consider an ill-considered, intemperate rant;
- for your failure to consider any possible interpretation, except that those 7 cyclists were deliberately hindering your august and speedy progress;
- and for your abject and total failure to engage with any argument that doesn't precisely tally with your ill-evidenced rant .... apart from puerile insults about village idiots. 

And you get antsy when your insults are turned back on you. 


coco69 said:


> Forget previous aplicants.....you have won hands down.
> Congratulations


----------



## 400bhp (19 Apr 2016)

Just coming home with the boss and a road that comes off the east lancs was at a standstill.....70 *cars ..*.why?? FFS no wonder drivers get pissed off at times..i was wound up myself...jesus.

That's the answer.


----------



## growingvegetables (19 Apr 2016)

coco69 said:


> ...... and its going nowhere apart from a few cowardly members throwing personal comments.


Have a look at your own posting history, mate.


----------



## Ajax Bay (20 Apr 2016)

[QUOTE 4244024, member: 9609"]when most people overtake another car, wing mirror to wing mirror, they are very likely only giving 6" to a foot.[/QUOTE]
I think that is a massive underestimate and certainly I hope I don't ever overtake that close to another moving vehicle. All they have to do is change their line a touch and . . .


----------



## slowmotion (20 Apr 2016)

Cunobelin said:


> Yesterday I was travelling through Surrey, and there was a tractor.... far wider than three cyclist
> 
> Should I hate Tractors
> 
> ?



A tractor is unable to modify its shape or size on the road. A group of cyclists are able to do this if it is safe and not inconvenient for them to do so to accommodate other road users. Some choose not to do so and annoy motorists who then hold a minor grudge against all cyclists, either justifiably or not.

Why pretend that this doesn't happen? We all suffer the consequences.


----------



## snorri (20 Apr 2016)

PhilDawson8270 said:


> BUT, cyclists say "Give as much room to overtake a cyclist as a car, use the next lane'. But with a car you're actually only giving it maybe 3 or 4ft of space in the next lane due to it's width.


It's actually the Highway Code that says 'Give cyclists as much room as.....' but this wording has been criticised for lack of clarity for some time for just the reasons you state. We are ever hopeful that the next HC revision will be an improvement.


----------



## mjr (20 Apr 2016)

slowmotion said:


> Some choose not to do so and annoy motorists who then hold a minor grudge against all cyclists, either justifiably or not.
> 
> Why pretend that this doesn't happen?


Why are you pretending that's why some bad motorists abuse cyclists, instead of the simpler explanation that they're just not nice people and go into a frothy Clarkson at the mere sight of two wheeled road users, the same people who try to block motorcycles from filtering?


----------



## slowmotion (20 Apr 2016)

mjray said:


> Why are you pretending that's why some bad motorists abuse cyclists, instead of the simpler explanation that they're just not nice people and go into a frothy Clarkson at the mere sight of two wheeled road users, the same people who try to block motorcycles from filtering?


I said "either justifiably or not".
It happens. Recognise that fact. It won't do any harm.


----------



## Tin Pot (20 Apr 2016)

coco69 said:


> I give up!!! 3 wide on a standard road is a piss take and thats my view...if you think different thats fine.



Good. Give up. Go away.


----------



## ufkacbln (20 Apr 2016)

slowmotion said:


> A tractor is unable to modify its shape or size on the road. A group of cyclists are able to do this if it is safe and not inconvenient for them to do so to accommodate other road users. Some choose not to do so and annoy motorists who then hold a minor grudge against all cyclists, either justifiably or not.
> 
> Why pretend that this doesn't happen? We all suffer the consequences.



Who is?

You are aware that single file cyclists are also unacceptable in most of these cases

The point that is in denial is that the majority of those who rant about it will hypocritically accept a similar delay from other sources.

It is the driver attitude that is often the issue


----------



## Markymark (20 Apr 2016)

coco69 said:


> I raised an opinion which has raised quite a hefty discussion.
> I will not be called just because my opinion is different than yours.
> I am old school and i really do wish this discussion was made in person without the power of internet and computer screens....oh i wish


No. The grown ups came along and the discussion started by people who managed to explain their views. Something in 10 pages you still didn't manage to do.


----------



## DRHysted (20 Apr 2016)

If it stopped this 
View: https://vimeo.com/161510668

Then I can easily understand why they'd ride like that.


----------



## Bollo (20 Apr 2016)

Do you know who really pishes me off. Right turners. Selfish feckers. I must have lost several minutes this week waiting for people who just must turn right without any consideration for others. What so good that's on the right only? Can't they find what they need on the left. I blame the EU.


----------



## hatler (20 Apr 2016)

snorri said:


> It's actually the Highway Code that says 'Give cyclists as much room as.....' but this wording has been criticised for lack of clarity for some time for just the reasons you state. We are ever hopeful that the next HC revision will be an improvement.


Yes. Badly worded in the HC but the clarification is provided by the picture accompanying the rule. The clear intent of the wording _and_ the picture combined is that an overtaking driver should pass a cyclist as though the cyclist were occupying as much space as a car. I struggle to understand why this is such a difficult concept for people, especially cyclists, to take onboard.


----------



## RichK (20 Apr 2016)

Cunobelin said:


> Yesterday I was travelling through Surrey, and there was a tractor.... far wider than three cyclist
> 
> Should I hate Tractors
> 
> ...



A couple of years back, I was on holiday in Devon. The local radio phone in was about farmers in tractors "holding up traffic." It was the same debate as the cyclist one we're all used to & yes people were calling in with suggestions like "they should only be allowed out at night because they hold me up" etc etc


----------



## nickyboy (20 Apr 2016)

I really try to avoid threads like this as it seems my opinion is not in the majority. But I'm drawn inexorably like a moth to a flame......

FWIW, here's what I think. Forget about what the Highway Code says for a minute, I'm just considering the reality of how car drivers drive.

When I'm cycling along on my own I get passed by cars. Practically none of them overtake me in the way they would another car. What they actually do is give me (in my opinion) enough room and that leads to them straddling the white line a bit. Some more than others. I'm happy with that, doesn't feel too close to me. Presumably they feel happy with that too. What this does do on quite a lot of roads is still give enough room for a car coming the other way at the same time.

Now of course some folk will say that's not safe. But that's the reality. When I'm driving I see this all the time; car coming the other way overtakes cyclist, straddling the white line. I see him and make sure he and I have enough room to continue driving safely.

Fast forward to three abreast. The driver wanting to overtake can't do the above. By overtaking he feels that he has compromised the space on the other side of the road to the extent that a car coming the other way hasn't got enough space. So he doesn't overtake

Of course I understand the argument that a car driver _should_ give as much room to a cyclist in overtaking as they would any other vehicle. But that just isn't the reality and that's from where this difference of opinion is derived


----------



## nickyboy (20 Apr 2016)

User said:


> This is all about an expectation, which then rapidly gets translated into a right, that nothing should hold people up when they are in a car.



As a cyclist I just try to rub along with other road users as much as possible. My general premise is that slower "occupiers of the highway" should try to let faster ones pass. No problem if others don't agree with this, it's just the way I ride


----------



## ChrisV (20 Apr 2016)

I agree with @nickyboy. I can understand why drivers would get annoyed with 3 abreast. I don't get the need for it but then I've never rode in a big group.

Also, watching that clip, most cyclists being overtaken closely seem to have incredibly high pitched voices!


----------



## Markymark (20 Apr 2016)

nickyboy said:


> As a cyclist I just try to rub along with other road users as much as possible. My general premise is that slower "occupiers of the highway" should try to let faster ones pass. No problem if others don't agree with this, it's just the way I ride


I always let faster road users pass. But only once I've made my safety the priority.


----------



## nickyboy (20 Apr 2016)

Markymark said:


> I always let faster road users pass. But only once I've made my safety the priority.



As I mentioned, an overtake when I'm cycling on my own where the driver straddles the white line is fine from a safety perspective in my view. As such, three abreast seems over the top and unnecessarily assertive

I suspect a lot of this difference of opinion stems from the type of cycling one does. I dare say urban commuting is quite fraught at times and being assertive is the way to stay safe. Viewing this situation through the lens of this experience leads to the opinion that what they did was fine. I cycle in the main on country roads out of rush hour. No need to be assertive and as such I struggle to come to terms with things like riding tree abreast


----------



## hatler (20 Apr 2016)

User said:


> Yes, there is a reasonable hierarchy here. My safety, your safety, my convenience, your convenience.


I try to slip both "The Law" and "The HC" into the middle of that sequence. And I sometimes play around with the sequence of the last two.


----------



## mick1836 (20 Apr 2016)

Markymark said:


> As many as fit in one lane. I will ask one last time to explain exactly what the problem is.
> 
> What difference does it make how many wide they are if they are in one lane for the person overtaking?



Mark, think coco69 must be a politician who NEVER can answer a straight and simple question?


----------



## nickyboy (20 Apr 2016)

User said:


> The thing is, you are a big roughty toughty sort, and capable of living with that. We need to be generating a more considerate road environment in order to make it safer and more pleasant for more people to use bikes to get about.



Actually I agree with this (the making roads safer and more pleasant bit, not necessarily the roughty toughty bit). I do worry that being _so _assertive as to ride three abreast is counter-productive. I suspect what you end up with there is a lot of very unhappy and fed up car drivers which is exactly what we would seek to avoid

I've previously said that if cyclists really want to do stuff like two or three abreast then there is a education process required to explain to drivers why it's the right thing to do. At the moment nobody is leading this. the cycling representative bodies should take a lead I think


----------



## mjr (20 Apr 2016)

slowmotion said:


> I said "either justifiably or not".
> It happens. Recognise that fact. It won't do any harm.


It would do harm of encouraging cyclists to put themselves in danger by riding single file when it's less safe to do so.

If you've no evidence for it, I'll keep believing the simpler explanation: they just abuse all cycles regardless of whether or not they've once seen some people not cycling single file.


----------



## benb (20 Apr 2016)

Surely a group of cyclists bunching up are actually making it easier for motorists to overtake them?
They should have thanked the cyclists for their consideration.


----------



## mjr (20 Apr 2016)

[QUOTE 4244214, member: 9609"]i still want to know how it would be possible for three cyclists to ride side by side in one lane - How do they deal with potholes ? I need an entire lane for myself just to weave in between them[/QUOTE]
The roads must be less holey than yours! Part of the reason why a cyclist's dynamic envelope is a metre when handlebars are between 40 and 70cm is to allow them to deviate by a foot to avoid such things. Any defect wider than a foot should be repaired urgently as dangerous... but austerity


----------



## PhilDawson8270 (20 Apr 2016)

PhilDawson8270 said:


> I'm also a driver, motorcyclist, pilot, and a cyclist. And I still disagree with you.
> 
> Are you able to say what issue was being caused by the riding of 3 abreast?



@coco69 any answer to this yet?


----------



## nickyboy (20 Apr 2016)

User3094 said:


> Yup. On club rides its very common for the ride leader to shout "Bunch Up" for this very reason. As @User has already said, its about safety.
> 
> Anyone who's still sceptical should a) join a club and b) try and do one of the British Cycling Group Riding courses. Can recommend both IME.



I can get this with a sizeable group as otherwise a car driver is faced with effectively a "long vehicle" overtake which is never easy

What would you think about, say, just 2 or 3 mates cycling together? Would it be preferable to single out or bunch up? My gut feeling is single out as 2-3 single file is pretty short.


----------



## coco69 (20 Apr 2016)

PhilDawson8270 said:


> @coco69 any answer to this yet?



Yes phil i will

In my opinion it was not needed as i didnt see the need for it..others disagree which is perfectly fine...thats was my opinion with that particular instance which im sticking with.
Cheers


----------



## ianrauk (20 Apr 2016)

nickyboy said:


> At the moment nobody is leading this. the cycling representative bodies should take a lead I think



It should be the motor lobby and the government. As we all know... car drivers will not listen to what any sort of cycling representative has to say.


----------



## PhilDawson8270 (20 Apr 2016)

coco69 said:


> Yes phil i will
> 
> In my opinion it was not needed as i didnt see the need for it..others disagree which is perfectly fine...thats was my opinion with that particular instance which im sticking with.
> Cheers



Thanks, however that was not the question. You said it was not needed, and didn't see the need for it.

The question I asked was;

What issue was caused by them riding 3 abreast?


----------



## nickyboy (20 Apr 2016)

ianrauk said:


> It should be the motor lobby and the government. As we all know... car drivers will not listen to what any sort of cycling representative has to say.



Car drivers won't listen to cycling representatives and, I dare say, cyclists won't listen to driving representatives. We're in quite a pickle aren't we?

My serious point was actually that, in the absence of anybody doing anything, maybe the cycling representative bodies should try to do something, rather than nothing


----------



## coco69 (20 Apr 2016)

PhilDawson8270 said:


> Thanks, however that was not the question. You said it was not needed, and didn't see the need for it.
> 
> The question I asked was;
> 
> What issue was caused by them riding 3 abreast?



Phil....been there pages ago, plenty of info on this thread...some stuff I didn't know, if you are trying to push me into a corner to try and get an answer then it aint happening pal..........again 3 wide 7 cyclists I didn't see the need for it....move on as I have.


----------



## benb (20 Apr 2016)

coco69 said:


> Phil....been there pages ago, plenty of info on this thread...some stuff I didn't know, if you are trying to push me into a corner to try and get an answer then it aint happening pal..........again 3 wide 7 cyclists I didn't see the need for it....move on as I have.



I don't see the need for an adult to wear a onesie in public, but that's not the question you are being asked.

What was the problem that the cyclists were causing by riding 3 abreast? Why is it "taking the piss" if, as you presumably accept, a driver needs to go fully into the other lane anyway.


----------



## Scoosh (20 Apr 2016)

*MOD NOTE:*
This thread has clearly run its course and has needed major cleaning up by the Mods.

Time to Close.


----------

