Doubling Up On Road

[freecyclist]

I told him that he was misguided and foolish at best. Out of all the things people have said to him on this thread, this one caused a dummy spit.

I sense you are disappointed that i didnt spit my dummy out at your provocation r2d2 but did at redlight.
Get real , nobody could take anything you say that seriously.

 

[ianrauk]

I sense you are disappointed that i didnt spit my dummy out at your provocation r2d2 but did at redlight.
Get real , nobody could take anything you say that seriously.

Oops I have.... is that bad then?

 

[freecyclist]

I'd have gone for
1 Read the Highway Code
2 Put a sock in it, for Christ's sake, you tedious troll.
But then you're nicer than I am.

You're the one who loudly advocates commanding the road and not making concessions to motorists and in the next breath whineing pathetically about being intimidated by them.
You work it out.

 

[freecyclist]

To go back to the op and group rides doubling up being 1 illegal, 2 unsafe and 3 inconsiderate
1 it's not illegal the highway code clearly says do not cycle more than 2 abreast
2 it's not unsafe as it's easier to see a group of cyclists riding 2 abreast than to to see them all line astern.
3 it's not inconsiderate as it makes them easier to pass, simple maths. To get past 1 cyclist requires a pass where the driver is exposed for aprox 3m plus the distance required to make the pass driving past a line of say 12 cyclists that becomes 36m plus. whearas passing a doubled up group that distance is halved to 18m+ thus halving the drivers risk and making it easier to pass as he doesn't have to wait for such a large gap to appear to enable the pass. I would argue that in a group ride that makes it more considerate to ride 2 abreast.

I agree its not illegal.
In some situations it is more safe and to be recommended on that basis.
In some situations it is not inconsiderate.
In some situations it is inconsiderate. Where motorists would safely be able to pass if cyclists singled out but not if cyclists are 2 abreast it is inconsiderate to ride 2 abreast.
Simples.
Furthermore i would regard it as advisable if cycing in large groups were discouraged on public roads. There is not benefit to be gained for anyone from cycing in large groups and there are many associated problems including safety considerations, public relations and public nuisance.
Id say max of 4 to 8 would be acceptable on public roads.

 

[Little yellow Brompton]

Whatever .
Can i now redirect my efforts into rehabilitating some of the forums other less considerate members , like r2d2.

Patronising much?

I can't see anyone who is actually saying what you claim to be decrying. I see a lot of you shadow boxing , whilst wearing earplugs.

 

[MissTillyFlop]

I agree its not illegal.
In some situations it is more safe and to be recommended on that basis.
In some situations it is not inconsiderate.
In some situations it is inconsiderate. Where motorists would safely be able to pass if cyclists singled out but not if cyclists are 2 abreast it is inconsiderate to ride 2 abreast.
Simples.
Furthermore i would regard it as advisable if cycing in large groups were discouraged. There is not benefit to be gained for anyone from cycing in large groups and there are many associated problems including safety considerations, public relations and public nuisance.
Id say max of 4 to 8 would be acceptable.

So you're advising that all cycling clubs should shut down and that sportives should be banned?

I think the organisers of the TDF might have something to say about that...

 

[ianrauk]

I agree its not illegal.
In some situations it is more safe and to be recommended on that basis.
In some situations it is not inconsiderate.
In some situations it is inconsiderate. Where motorists would safely be able to pass if cyclists singled out but not if cyclists are 2 abreast it is inconsiderate to ride 2 abreast.
Simples.
Furthermore i would regard it as advisable if cycing in large groups were discouraged. There is not benefit to be gained for anyone from cycing in large groups and there are many associated problems including safety considerations, public relations and public nuisance.
Id say max of 4 to 8 would be acceptable.

Blimey,

"Sorry old mate, you are not allowed to ride with us today as the max cycle number Nazi's have said we can't have more then 8 friends on the road and you're the 9th, but tell you what, just ride 1 foot behind us and we can say you are not with us"

Quite pathetic your statement is, isn't it.

 

[freecyclist]

So you're advising that all cycling clubs should shut down and that sportives should be banned?

I think the organisers of the TDF might have something to say about that...

Noted , agreed and edited.
Public roads.
Closed road properly organised events are fine .

 

[MissTillyFlop]

Noted , agreed and edited.
Public roads.

Sportives ARE HELD on public roads, and the roads are rarely closed to traffic.

 

[freecyclist]

Revise your perception to your heart's content, it matters not. You are a sad and self deluding individual who brings nothing of any value to the party whilst scorning useful advice from people who really do know better than you.
As I say, anytime you have a useful contribution to make.

Whoops - there you go getting upset and throwing your dolly out of your pram again.
Can i suggest you go back to doing the other thing you do such a lot of on the internet and let the adults have a sensible discussion without your moronic distractions.

 

[freecyclist]

Sportives ARE HELD on public roads, and the roads are rarely closed to traffic.

Good point. Sportives should of course be allowed providing the proper organisation and management.

 

[rowan 46]

I appreciate you have a point about courteous cycling as in it's desirable but you now seem to have gone past that to suggesting that roads are for cars and all other forms of transport are allowed only on the motorists sufferance. it's an odd stand to take on a cycle forum and I think that's why so many are getting het up. Unless restrictions are in place roads are for all imo.

 

[MissTillyFlop]

Good point. Sportives should of course be allowed providing the proper organisation and management.

Cycling clubs are generally organised and I know when CC goes out as a group we're very accomodating to other road users. It's not like we line up and do the hokey cokey across the road.

So wouldn't it be better to just educate people about responsible road use via say some sort of printed booklet, (let's call it a code for now) rather than creating more pretty unenforcable rules about numbers of cyclists allowed in one cycling party? And by using the road, it is assumed by law enforcement officers that all road users have read and agreed to the laws, bylaws and advice given in it?

 

[pepecat]

Which is annoying when you're in a car and are trying to overtake half a dozen pairs around blind bends etc (or sit behind them all the whole journey).

You overtake on blind bends??? Seriously??

 

[freecyclist]

I appreciate you have a point about courteous cycling as in it's desirable but you now seem to have gone past that to suggesting that roads are for cars and all other forms of transport are allowed only on the motorists sufferance. it's an odd stand to take on a cycle forum and I think that's why so many are getting het up. Unless restrictions are in place roads are for all imo.

Glad we find common ground on the courteous cycling idea.
Re the restrictions - you are quite entiltled to disagree.
I would in the same way discourage convoys of caravans for example, or any relatively slow moving traffic.
If 10 riders turn up why dont we go out in 2 groups of 5 or 4 + 6 for the sake of pairs. Just a thought.