Doubling Up On Road

[Bicycle]

This thread certainly is an itch one can't stop scratching.

I detect something of a pattern, although not an absolute one:

Contributors broadly agree that the key issues are courtesy, awareness and clear indication of intent.

Those contributors who believe that there are times when doubling up is just selfish, thoughtless or discourteous tend to be those who are also motorists.

There is a minority of contributors who seem to take a slightly anti-motorist view and who view anyone in a car with deep suspicion. These contributors give the impression (through their prose) that they do not drive.

I quite understand the issue with group rides. I have no issue with them. They rarely hold one up for longer than a few minutes and it's lovely to see that sort of use being deriived from our road network.

What was quite surprising was to see how self-appointed 'chaingang experts' were getting quite offensively comparitive about who was and was not capable of taking the tail of a group. That sort of thing brings the level of the debate down to Year 1 of primary school. Huge fun for the reader, but it doesn't reflect well n the contributor.

I also notice in this thread a feeling amongst some that 'motorists are motorists and cyclists are cyclists' and that there is some sort of Biblical conflict there between the enlightened and the savage pagan.

It simply isn't so. Many motorists cycle and many cyclists drive. All we need to do is rub along together and treat other road users like members of our own family.

I have the sneakiest little inkling of a suspicion that one or two contributors here set out for a ride half looking for another outrage perpetrated by a wicked motorist. Really... it isn't some sort of mortal sin. Poor driving is annoying; so is poor cycling. Both can occasionally cause pain.



Drive and ride with awareness, forethought and courtesy. Life will be much jollier if you do.

 

[Moss]

Not safe to write on the forum or ride a bicycle on the highway! Don't really understand why cyclists disagree about a simple manouver by motorists on the UK Road systems? When it's simple : 'When passing a cyclist, do so with the utmost care and caution' : Don't be selfish, show some consideration for other road users! Simple!

 

[benb]

Let's just call it " a place where the road narrows considerably for a couple of feet"

^ what she said

 

[Dan B]

Hey ben remind me what a pinch point is again because last time i gave up going to answer cos of all the confusion and bickering over the agreed definition.

While I am prepared to accept freecyclist's at his word that he is not a troll, some of his posts in this thread seem largely indistinguishable from those that a troll would make, and the above is a notable example. Consider (a) the pretended ignorance as to what a pinch point is (surely a very simple and easily guessable term), (b) the misrepresentation of earlier discussion in which people tried to explain it to him, (c) the demand for spoon feeding information which he could quite easily fond out for himself even if it wasn't obvious from context, all in the service of (d) keeping the thread active while avoiding answering the question

Really, if he was trying to troll he couldn't be doing much better. It's quite bizarre that a genuine request for information should so closely resemble an ongoing and persistent wind-up attempt

 

[freecyclist]

This thread certainly is an itch one can't stop scratching.

I detect something of a pattern, although not an absolute one:

Contributors broadly agree that the key issues are courtesy, awareness and clear indication of intent.

Those contributors who believe that there are times when doubling up is just selfish, thoughtless or discourteous tend to be those who are also motorists.

There is a minority of contributors who seem to take a slightly anti-motorist view and who view anyone in a car with deep suspicion. These contributors give the impression (through their prose) that they do not drive.

I quite understand the issue with group rides. I have no issue with them. They rarely hold one up for longer than a few minutes and it's lovely to see that sort of use being deriived from our road network.

What was quite surprising was to see how self-appointed 'chaingang experts' were getting quite offensively comparitive about who was and was not capable of taking the tail of a group. That sort of thing brings the level of the debate down to Year 1 of primary school. Huge fun for the reader, but it doesn't reflect well n the contributor.

I also notice in this thread a feeling amongst some that 'motorists are motorists and cyclists are cyclists' and that there is some sort of Biblical conflict there between the enlightened and the savage pagan.

It simply isn't so. Many motorists cycle and many cyclists drive. All we need to do is rub along together and treat other road users like members of our own family.

I have the sneakiest little inkling of a suspicion that one or two contributors here set out for a ride half looking for another outrage perpetrated by a wicked motorist. Really... it isn't some sort of mortal sin. Poor driving is annoying; so is poor cycling. Both can occasionally cause pain.



Drive and ride with awareness, forethought and courtesy. Life will be much jollier if you do.

Incidentally fyi.
I do not own a car.
I am 100% cycle / public transport dependant.
I am assertive (to a fault) when cycling.
I have a problem with any cyclist who merely for the sake of cyclists right to do so impedes other road users unecessarily thereby tainting the reputation of all cyclists. Like riding 2 abreast as the norm like dellegg.

 

[benb]

Incidentally fyi.
I do not own a car.
I am 100% cycle / public transport dependant.
I am assertive (to a fault) when cycling.
I have a problem with any cyclist who merely for the sake of cyclists right to do so impedes other road users unecessarily thereby tainting the reputation of all cyclists. Like riding 2 abreast as the norm like dellegg.

If that's really what you think, then how the hell have you strung this out for 20+ pages?
No-one has suggested that cyclists should deliberately impede other road users just for the hell of it, but to prevent unsafe overtakes.

 

[freecyclist]

^ what she said

Yes take primary.
I agree with whatever your point is here ben ok as its not really what i want to discuss nor was querying. (i cant remember what point you were making tbh)

 

[freecyclist]

[QUOTE 1588698"]
That's not the case, as you know.
[/quote]

Yes it is.
You (like all exponents of 2 abreast) argued that cycling 2 abreast or single file makes no difference for overtaking as motorists should only ever overtake 100% in the opposite carriageway.
This has now been shown to be totally incorrect.
So cyclist riding 2 abreast or single file does make a difference to whether motorist can overtake.
Motorists may be able to safely overtake groups of cyclists if they are in single file but not if they are 2 abreast.

 

[Dan B]

This thread certainly is an itch one can't stop scratching.

I detect something of a pattern, although not an absolute one:

With respect, I think it's a pattern of your own imagining.

You are assuming that people who display a "suspicion" of cars do so because they don't drive. Then you are claiming that this is because they don't drive and are viewing this issue through an "us and them" lens. This is circular reasoning

I drive. Whether I am driving or cycling, I display a "suspicion" of cars because, empirically, some car drivers are boneheads. In fact, my driving instructor told me to : he said that I should not trust other drivers' intentions and always be prepared for them to do something stupid. I think this is pretty standard advice, as I've heard many other drivers say similar. The widespread belief among drivers that they're better than average is also consonant with a mental attitude that "everyone else is an idiot"

Of course the vast majority of road users of whatever kind are sensible and predictable (I wouldn't necessarily go so far as to say "courteous", but then I live in London, and the cognitive load of driving or riding in zone 1 rarely allows much overhead for pleasantries) but even if the percentage of idiots is one in a hundred it doesn't take more than ten minutes to see a hundred other road users. And that means I will continue to take primary when the road narrows and discourage unsafe overtakes through my road positioning: good drivers will understand why I'm doing it, and the bad drivers I'd rather have in a state of annoyance than in the side of my bicycle.

As far as this thread goes, at least, the "war" between cyclists and drivers is in your imagination.

 

[MrHappyCyclist]

I have a problem with any cyclist who merely for the sake of cyclists right to do so impedes other road users unecessarily thereby tainting the reputation of all cyclists. Like riding 2 abreast as the norm like dellegg.

As I gain more experience of travelling the same route, every time I have a problem in a certain place that can be ascribed to my own failure to adopt a strong road position, I resolve to change my habit and claim the lane at that point. It is interesting that I can see a time when I will be riding the whole journey in primary position. This is because in every place where I try to be courteous, I eventually get some idiotic driver taking the p155. Sometimes I will post a video of the incident on YouTube and then various people will tell me I should be riding in a stronger position to prevent this.

 

[benb]

Yes take primary.
I agree with whatever your point is here ben ok as its not really what i want to discuss nor was querying. (i cant remember what point you were making tbh)

Finally.

So you obviously have no problem with taking primary to prevent (or at least discourage) an unsafe overtake.
That is exactly what 99% of cyclists are doing when continuing to cycle two abreast when a car comes up.

Obviously you sometimes get a selfish idiot, just as you do in all areas of life, but when they continue to cycle two abreast it's not to assert cyclist's rights, it's just because they're selfish idiots.

No-one here has promoted or defended deliberately impeding other road users progress just for the sake of it. But when your own safety is at stake it is absolutely the right thing to do to take a strong and assertive road position to discourage an unsafe overtake. Do you agree?

 

[freecyclist]

If that's really what you think, then how the hell have you strung this out for 20+ pages?
No-one has suggested that cyclists should deliberately impede other road users just for the hell of it, but to prevent unsafe overtakes.

Ok ben - mrpaul has said that cyclists are justified in cycling 2 breast because a car overtaking is required to do so 100% in the opposite lane. If cars are required to overtake 100% in the opposite lane then this makes sense - it would make no difference to cars ability to overtake if cyclists were 5 abreast if what mrpauls says were true.
I was querying if it is true that cars should only overtake 100% in the opposite lane because that is what cyclists right to cycle 2abreast all the time is founded on.
If it is true the i can see that theoretically riding 2 abreast all the time is correct.
If it is not true then 2 abreast or single file does affect motorists ability to overtake and therefore riding single file would be recommended as it allows for other traffic to flow - obviously if safety dictates going to primary then you go to primary but that is the same for solo or single file group.
Dyu get me at all ?

 

[benb]

Ok ben - mrpaul has said that cyclists are justified in cycling 2 breast because a car overtaking is required to do so 100% in the opposite lane. If cars are required to overtake 100% in the opposite lane then this makes sense - it would make no difference to cars ability to overtake if cyclists were 5 abreast if what mrpauls says were true.
I was querying if it is true that cars should only overtake 100% in the opposite lane because that is what cyclists right to cycle 2abreast all the time is founded on.
If it is true the i can see that theoretically riding 2 abreast all the time is correct.
If it is not true then 2 abreast or single file does affect motorists ability to overtake and therefore riding single file would be recommended as it allows for other traffic to flow - obviously if safety dictates going to primary then you go to primary but that is the same for solo or single file group.
Dyu get me at all ?

I understand what you're saying, but that's not a position that anyone has put forward, so is a total straw man.

Mr Paul said that in some situations the overtaking vehicle should move 100% into the opposite lane, but he never said that was the case every time, in all situations, regardless of the road conditions.

In some road situations it is safest for the riders to drop into single file, in others it is safest for them to remain 2 abreast.

 

[Bicycle]

With respect, I think it's a pattern of your own imagining.

You are assuming that people who display a "suspicion" of cars do so because they don't drive. Then you are claiming that this is because they don't drive and are viewing this issue through an "us and them" lens. This is circular reasoning

I drive. Whether I am driving or cycling, I display a "suspicion" of cars because, empirically, some car drivers are boneheads. In fact, my driving instructor told me to : he said that I should not trust other drivers' intentions and always be prepared for them to do something stupid. I think this is pretty standard advice, as I've heard many other drivers say similar. The widespread belief among drivers that they're better than average is also consonant with a mental attitude that "everyone else is an idiot"

Of course the vast majority of road users of whatever kind are sensible and predictable (I wouldn't necessarily go so far as to say "courteous", but then I live in London, and the cognitive load of driving or riding in zone 1 rarely allows much overhead for pleasantries) but even if the percentage of idiots is one in a hundred it doesn't take more than ten minutes to see a hundred other road users. And that means I will continue to take primary when the road narrows and discourage unsafe overtakes through my road positioning: good drivers will understand why I'm doing it, and the bad drivers I'd rather have in a state of annoyance than in the side of my bicycle.

As far as this thread goes, at least, the "war" between cyclists and drivers is in your imagination.

I take your point, but I differ:

Yes, all trainee drivers are told to be prepared for idiocy. I've recently been teaching my eldest to drive and it all came back to me. Incidentally, she is a very keen cyclist, but rides differently now that she drives.

On 'better than average' I agree with you. I have long been a DP bore about this. I regularly claim that I am a below-average driver. People say this cannot be so (they are polite) and I say "Look how many points I have" (which is often quite a few). People really are unwilling to be in or below the fiftieth centile. I have no idea why. It might be like saying I'm a lousy shag... althopugh in truth it isn't.

As to London, it's where I'm from andI ride there regularly (although I no longer live there). I find cycling in London a pleasure. An absolute pleasure. A very diifferent one from riding in the Marches where I live, but a pleasure nonetheless.

Courtesy is everywhere. Boneheadedness is rare.

As to the cyclist/driver conflict on these pages being in my head, I disagree. You and I are not a part of it, but I see plenty of circumstantial suggestion that there are contributors here who dislike drivers and tar us/them all with the same brush.

 

[StuartG]

Have you been at it all night? I'm afraid I dropped out nearly 20 pages ago ... and I note the discussion has not progressed (regressed?). IMHO you are all just wasting photons which can only bring forward our annihilation according to the second law of thermodynamics.

We don't understand Freecyclist. Freecyclist doesn't understand us. No resolution is possible unless, perhaps, FC were to join Del on a FNRttC or go on a club run (most welcome guests, its just a case of finding one that matches your riding speed/stamina). Then FC - you would much better understand our varied views and less likely to misconstrue them. Then your views on how runs are conducted are likely to mean more to us.

Otherwise it is easy to dismiss you as 'clueless'. I'm not trying to insult you but just make you aware of why so many have left this thread and certain others continue it for their own pleasure. If you feel you are not clueless then you need a better basis of fact to critique group riding. And think us not defensive, the bottom line is safety on the road. Unnecessarily alienating motorists will never help that. And if a leader of our group ever did that then he would soon be riding alone.

These columns are often filled with vigorous discussion on the pros and cons of the CycleCraft (primary/assertive) style of riding. We are not a simple extremist block. We are trying to find our way to the best style of riding and most of us are open to valued experience from all viewpoints. You just need to up your value if you want your viewpoint taken seriously.

Sorry if that appears condescending. I have no wish to be. Just genuinely trying to be of help to you. Take it or leave it.