Doubling Up On Road

[MissTillyFlop]

HELMET!


*runs away*

 

[benb]

Isnt it up to motorists to decide if its safe for them to overtake ?

Hahahaha, that's a good one. Do you do stand-up?

 

[Origamist]

No i expressed concern that tc was getting intimidated because of her riding style.
By "You have an attitude problem with groups of cyclists" do you mean because i have questioned the practice ?
So does questioning anything mean an attitude problems ?

You have done more than "question the practice" when someone mentioned that they often ride two abreast, you said they had a "brazenly selfish and inconsiderate attitude". If you're going to couch your language in those terms, it's not surprising that you're going to cop some flak for your attitude.

As it appears you have never ridden in a group, you do not understand the dynamics of group riding. This position of ignorance allied to intransigence, is both amusing, and a teensy, weensy bit sad.

 

[adscrim]

No it woudnt / shoudnt.
But the point is that cyclists in secondary would seem to accomodate overtakes that cars in the same situation would not by virtue of there being more space.
Is it ok to go past 1/3 and 2/3 if there seems to be enough room ?

I don't agree. The point is that cyclists are vulnerable road users who have an equal right to be on the public highway. They/We have the right to use the highway without fear of dangerous overtaking actions. I think most motorist fail to recognise that the distance between their front bumper/front wing/wing mirror and the cyclist is not the same as the distance from their left elbow to the cyclist.

As to whether it's safe 1/3 and 2/3, I believe this is where we have to deffer to the discretion of the forward road user. If, when cycling on a narrow street (either singley or in a group), it becomes clear that a safe passing point may be some distance away, I slow and move over to the far left and wave other traffic through. The decision to do this must be mine though.

 

[freecyclist]

[QUOTE 1588434"]
The distance between you and the cyclist you are passing should always be at least one car's width. Regardless of where the cyclist is on the road. It's not the distance between you and the kerb.
[/quote]

Ok so on that basis cars should basically allways overtake 100% in the opposite lane and never when it would only be possible to overtake by going part in the cyclists lane.
On that theoretic basis then as you say it makes no diference how many cyclists are in the lane as any passing motorist has to move into the opposite lane whether its a single cyclist or a bunch 4 abreast.
I get you theoretically.
My experience is that cars normally pass me about 1 or 1.5 meters away with a very few giving ample room like you describe.
I see that you have a valid theoretical arguement.
Should i be upset about motorists not passing totally in the other lane ?
Is it illegal for motorists to pass a cyclist by not going into the other lane.

 

[adscrim]

Should i be upset about motorists not passing totally in the other lane ?

Yes, but it's not going to do you much good.

Is it illegal for motorists to pass a cyclist by not going into the other lane.

No, in much the same way that it's not illegal for cyclist to ride 3 or 4 abreast.

 

[srw]

Twat? Nope - that's only four letters....

Twunt? Thick? Troop? Prole? No - I said it began with T. It's on the tip of my tonguey-tongue-tongue.

 

[freecyclist]

I don't agree. The point is that cyclists are vulnerable road users who have an equal right to be on the public highway. They/We have the right to use the highway without fear of dangerous overtaking actions. I think most motorist fail to recognise that the distance between their front bumper/front wing/wing mirror and the cyclist is not the same as the distance from their left elbow to the cyclist.

As to whether it's safe 1/3 and 2/3, I believe this is where we have to deffer to the discretion of the forward road user. If, when cycling on a narrow street (either singley or in a group), it becomes clear that a safe passing point may be some distance away, I slow and move over to the far left and wave other traffic through. The decision to do this must be mine though.

Pulling over is to be commended. However.
Your riding solo - it seems that it might be ok for a car to pass 1/3 and 2/3 do you ride secondary to facilitate the following cars overtaking or do you ride primary to prevent it.
My self - i ride secondary and let the cars go past.
Mrpauls has (presumably correctly) informed me that it is not permissable to overtake like this and presumably cyclist should ride assertively to prevent overtaking (primary).
What would you do ?

 

[jethro10]

Regardless of what the law says, I find it discouteous.

It's perfectly legal to walk three-abreast along the pavement, but if a little old lady is coming the other way with her shopping trolley, it's kind, courteous and thoughtful to move into file while she passes.

The argument that 'a passing car should allow as much space as it does for a car' can lose something in real life.

If we are arguing that a car must allow a single cyclist the same room they allow a car, does that mean a whole lane?

That is the width I allow for a car when I'm passing it in my car.

That being so, do I then allow two whole lanes for two cyclists riding abreast?

If not, do I allow them the width I'd give a car plus the width of one bicycle?

This is a serious question, not some exercise in elementary trolling.

In the lanes around my picturesque market town, passing a single bicycle is fraught with difficulty. I know. I train regularly on those lanes; so do my two younger children, who still live at home.

Passing two cycles abreast is a practical impossibility unless they go in line astern.

I ride 2-abreast with my children along the lanes, but as soon as we hear a car we slip into line. It's a common courtesy.

On most roads, I would not even consider riding two-abreast.

"Because the HC says I can" just seems the weak justification of the kind of cyclist who refers to motorists as 'motons'.

But I'm lucky. In 40 years cycling and 30 years driving, I've never had a cross word with another motorist or cyclist. Maybe if I'd been unfortunate enough to elicit quite unjustified insults from other road users, I'd be more inclined to hang with my grimy fingertips onto the hallowed word of the HC. I don't know.

Totally agree.
As a cyclist, I see almost every day how many cyclists can and do give cyclists a bad name.

J

 

[adscrim]

Pulling over is to be commended. However.
Your riding solo - it seems that it might be ok for a car to pass 1/3 and 2/3 do you ride secondary to facilitate the following cars overtaking or do you ride primary to prevent it.
My self - i ride secondary and let the cars go past.
Mrpauls has (presumably correctly) informed me that it is not permissable to overtake like this and presumably cyclist should ride assertively to prevent overtaking (primary).
What would you do ?

My positioning on the road changes dependant on a number of factors. On wide open roads I ride secondary, but a strong secondary, not stuck in the gutter, this strong position also deters oncoming traffic overtaking slower vehicles on their side of the road. Where there isn't enough room for a car to get past without cutting it too close I ride primary; far out enough to fully claim my lane, moving back into secondary when I deem it safe for me to do so. For the most part, this is through town where I tend to be travelling at roughly the same speed as traffic (altough this doesn't always stop cars trying to overtake and squeeze me out).

 

[Bicycle]

I'd love to know which route you take that achieves that. I suspect either you are threading your way down the back streets to avoid cars or you are being delayed by cars on the main routes at that time of the day. BICBW

Not at all. Although I was a motorcycle courier in the 80s and have a fair knowledge of london, I just cross Praed Street and Sussex Gdns, then B/Water Rd, Marble Arch, park Lane and through the park.


I stay on the road round Marble Arch, as I dislike the through-way for cyclists. Its lights seem weighted against its users, so whipping round the main junction is usually far quicker.

Of course I am slightly impeded by cars, but not in a way that makes me cross. The point I was making is that cars are faster in some parts and bicycles in others.

But to this day, Paddington to Whitehall in rush hour remains one of the most exhilarating short rides I know.

 

[benb]

Seems to me that, if freecyclist is genuine, he's getting upset about a situation that hardly ever occurs.

In a group of 2 or more, it's more sociable to cycle 2 abreast. If a car comes up behind, then 99.9% of cyclists would move to single file to facilitate the overtake. If an overtake is dangerous, then I hope most cyclists would stay 2 abreast to discourage a dangerous manoevre.

The vast majority of cyclists do not hold up motorists just for a laugh - we will almost always go to single file if it is safe to do so.

Our safety on the road is the number one priority.

Freecyclist, do you get similarly upset when a cyclist moves into primary because of an upcoming pinch point, or to avoid the door zone?

 

[benb]

Yes i can see that is a valid viewpoint. But i still question the desirability of having very large groups of cyclists on public roads. Problems - both real and perceived.

In my experience it's large groups of motorised vehicles that cause problems on the roads, not large groups of cyclists.

 

[MissTillyFlop]

Maybe I should stop riding 7 abreast and taking potshots at drivers with my semi-automatics shotgun...

 

[freecyclist]

My positioning on the road changes dependant on a number of factors. On wide open roads I ride secondary, but a strong secondary, not stuck in the gutter, this strong position also deters oncoming traffic overtaking slower vehicles on their side of the road. Where there isn't enough room for a car to get past without cutting it too close I ride primary; far out enough to fully claim my lane, moving back into secondary when I deem it safe for me to do so. For the most part, this is through town where I tend to be travelling at roughly the same speed as traffic (altough this doesn't always stop cars trying to overtake and squeeze me out).

I accept that you are unable to give a definitive answer as it depends on a number of factors.
I can see that theoretically i should be a militant cyclist like some (not all) other forum people and single mindedly arguie the cyclists cause regardless of anything else but i cant help personally prefering a stance of accomodating and being considerate to other road users and hoping that they will do likewise .