Doubling Up On Road

[freecyclist]

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?

Yes ben - you arnt the person i am disagreeing with and i have never had any desire to argue with you.

 

[benb]

Yes ben - you arnt the person i am disagreeing with and i have never had any desire to argue with you.

But the position I outlined above is precisely the same as has been explained by the very many other posters on this thread.

So it looks like we are all in agreement - it's absolutely fine and the right thing to do to take primary/ride 2 abreast in order to discourage an unsafe overtake.

Can we leave it there now please?

 

[freecyclist]

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.

Hi Ben.
To clarify;
Page 15.
Mrpaul confirmed to me that "motorists should treat all cyclists like cars and only overtake when they can do so 100% in the other lane (aka car overtake)."
I have been querying this.
I dont know this may even be what the highway code says and cyclists actually are theoretically justified in cycling round 2 abreast all the time.

 

[MissTillyFlop]

Hi Ben.
To clarify;
Page 15.
Mrpaul confirmed to me that "motorists should treat all cyclists like cars and only overtake when they can do so 100% in the other lane (aka car overtake)."
I have been querying this.
I dont know this may even be what the highway code says and cyclists actually are theoretically justified in cycling round 2 abreast all the time.

The only post that I can see even vaguely similar says:

If you couldn't overtake a car in the same space you shouldn't overtake a bike.

It has been edited, mind.

 

[rowan 46]

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.

I must admit I never noticed the same pattern as you. there have been claims of some sort of militant cycle republican army but no evidence. Claims laid against some camera cyclists on other threads that they look for trouble. But this post is the first I've seen in this thread of cyclists looking for trouble ( I am prepared to apologise If I have missed one I confess to not remembering every post) As to the motorists are motorists and cyclists are cyclists well it may be that 90% of the cyclists here are also motorists. But my guess is that motorists on this forum drive considerately. It's the drivers who don't cycle who give the close passes, who overtake slam on the brakes then turn left or just left hook you. I know and every cyclist knows it's not every driver but if I got 100 cyclists who had had a friend killed or seriously injured on a bike my bet is that 90 of them would have involved a motor car. we know that motorists are not the enemy but they are the cyclists biggest threat and it doesn't hurt to cycle in such a way so as to mitigate that threat. As to driving with awareness, forethought and courtesy I am all for that but that that cuts both ways. it is not courteous of cars to expect me to stop and pull over (as has been suggested) just because they wish to pass me.
I am not a militant cyclist trying to control the highways. cars are welcome to the roads I use a car on occasions. All I ask of car drivers is they treat me with the same respect I treat them.

 

[StuartG]

I must admit I never noticed the same pattern as you

+1

 

[freecyclist]

[QUOTE 1588726"]
There's nothing remotely like you claim above on page 15.

Despite this, I have continued to respond to your query, again without saying what you claim above.

Why are you consistently trying to make me say something that I don't think, just so that you can argue against it?


[/quote]

Page 13
Mrpaul confirmed to me that "motorists should treat all cyclists like cars and only overtake when they can do so 100% in the other lane (aka car overtake)."

 

[theclaud]

I must admit I never noticed the same pattern as you.

+1

Me neither. On account of it not being there.

 

[Dan B]

[QUOTE 1588726"]
Why are you consistently trying to make me say something that I don't think, just so that you can argue against it?
[/quote]

Oddly enough, that's another thing that trolls do. But I'm sure that's not the explanation here

 

[pepecat]

[QUOTE 1588718"]

Consider-
http://maps.google.c...,44.85,,0,11.67

This inside lane was designed to be wide enough to allow what were considered at the time to be safe overtakes without leaving the lane. The jury is out on whether this is possible. But my behaviour is different here. I have little problem with safe overtakes being carried out within the lane. If I consider that an approaching car is not going to pass me safely then I will take primary. This may prevent an unsafe overtake, and also gives me the opportunity to swing to the left to get away from the car if he still tries to pass too closely.
[/quote]

Now then, User..... we all know you should be using the shared cycle/pedestrian route on the pavement here and not on the road at all.......

 

[Arch]

I can see that theoretically cyclists riding 2 abreast will be no more or less difficult to overtake presuming a car moves into the opposite carriageway to overtake. But the reality is that it is easier to navigate your way past a single line cyclist.

Not if a driver overtakes properly. That is, when there's good visibility, and no oncoming traffic. What too many drivers do is assume that it's ok to have

cyclist - themselves in car - oncoming car

all abreast at the same time, when on the vast majority of roads, that's going to be uncomfortably close for the cyclist, and probably the oncoming driver too....

Also, if you have two cyclists, one ahead of the other, you have to allow for a longer overtake, and hence a longer gap in the oncoming traffic. Once again, many drivers seem to assume that it takes the same time to overtake two cyclists in tandem (one in front of the other) as two abreast, often meaning they cut back in uncomfortably early for the one in front...

 

[benb]

[/size]

Oddly enough, that's another thing that trolls do. But I'm sure that's not the explanation here

Just a coincidence I reckon, along with the constant use of straw-man arguments.

 

[VamP]

Guys, has it occured to any of you that freecyclist might be suffering from some condition, that is causing him to argue the way he does? Some forms of autism manifest themselves like this. Doggedly stating same thing over and over again, despite the thrust of dicussion having moved elsewhere.

I reckon we oughta give him the benefit of the doubt, and let this one die. It's been gone over enough.

 

[StuartG]

[QUOTE 1588736"]
I don't think so. He's just another internetter who comes with an opinion based without knowledge, but is unwilling to consider other views that might seem a bit alien.
[/quote]
If you believe that why waste your time and Shaun's bandwidth?

I agree, let it die.

 

[Little yellow Brompton]

Page 13
Mrpaul confirmed to me that "motorists should treat all cyclists like cars and only overtake when they can do so 100% in the other lane (aka car overtake)."

Sniff, Sniff.


Sniiiifffff?


Troll!