Doubling Up On Road

[MrHappyCyclist]

Not the cycling militancy that prevails on this forum - were cyclists and we'll do what we want and f anyone else.

See the quotation in my signature bar.

 

[Moss]

I am currently involved in a protracted correspondence with the Driving Standards Agency (an executive agency of the Department for Transport) about this very question. When I have collated all of the information, I will post it up. However, it will take a while...

Must say I've enjoyed reading this thread; and I'm looking forward to reading the information you receive from the D.S.A and D.O.T.

The old Highway Code Book stated, that when overtaking a cyclist, you should give them a distance of 6, to 8, feet while passing. Also stated that cyclists could ride two abreast on all A roads. Personally, I think some courtesy and a well mannered attitude, shown by motorists, cyclists and pedestrians, is the only true option for the safety of all road users.

 

[freecyclist]

You have more faith in the "understanding" of the average driver than many cyclists do.

Yes. When you have cyclists deciding when they think its ok to let motorists pass then you dont have to be a brain surgeon to see that some cyclists arnt going to be overly concerned about prioritising the interests of motorist and that this is inevitably going to antagonise motorists. Its a judgement call - some cyclists will judge it correctly and some will be selfish .
Even those who judge it correctly will still probably provoke the anger of motorists , unjustifiably , just because riding 2 abreast is viewed as selfish even when it is justified.

 

[MrHappyCyclist]

a definition of "room"

1. space or extent, esp unoccupied or unobstructed space for a particular purpose is there room to pass?

Or, in this case, "is there room for the cyclist to come off their bike without you hitting them?"

 

[freecyclist]

They go along roads and around corners and are probably capable of speeds in excess of any legal limit in the UK. Some of the less capable models have "indicator" lights at each corner which are used to signal the drivers intentions to other road users. They go better on tarmac than on ice or grass. They don't go up kerbs or over bollards very easily.


Unless you're driving a car with a magic teleport button or a local gravitational field manipulator, it is unlikely that it has much capacity to do anything in any way relevant to overtaking safely that I as a cyclist don't have a pretty good working understanding of already. But it's a nice thought

Maybe.
Depends strongly on the cyclists being attentive to the needs of following traffic.
There will be those that will be good and those that will be bad.
The perception will allways however be that its selfish cyclists holding the traffic up riding 2 abreast even if it is legitimate.

 

[VamP]

some cyclists arnt going to be overly concerned about prioritising the interests of motorist and that this is inevitably going to antagonise motorists.

Really? Should I really prioritise a driver's ability to save a few seconds, which he'll likely give up with interest at the next traffic snarl-up, over my safety? Really??

I am a motorist, and a rider ahead taking a defensive position never antagonises me. Never antagonised me when I wasn't a cyclist either.

You can't put an equals sign between convenience and safety, which is why the HC has special provisions for vulnerable road users. Not all road users are equal, vulnerable ones have more rights. It's really very simple.

 

[freecyclist]

Really? Should I really prioritise a driver's ability to save a few seconds, which he'll likely give up with interest at the next traffic snarl-up, over my safety? Really??

I am a motorist, and a rider ahead taking a defensive position never antagonises me. Never antagonised me when I wasn't a cyclist either.

You can't put an equals sign between convenience and safety, which is why the HC has special provisions for vulnerable road users. Not all road users are equal, vulnerable ones have more rights. It's really very simple.

You can have more than one priority.
Obviously there own safety should be a cyclists priority.
But so should the interests of other traffic be a priority. Like if you are holding up traffic with no likelyhood of there being anywhere safe for them to overtake for a long while you could pull over and let them pass. If you dont prioritise other people then you wont.

 

[VamP]

You can have more than one priority.
Obviously there own safety should be a cyclists priority.
But so should the interests of other traffic be a priority. Like if you are holding up traffic with no likelyhood of there being anywhere safe for them to overtake for a long while you could pull over and let them pass. If you dont prioritise other people then you wont.

That's common road courtesy, and I am sure you won't find many on here who would hold up traffic in the way you describe.

On the other hand, in pinch points where I've had a car try to force me off the road because he misjudged my speed, or his speed, or wasn't aware, or something distracted him; there I will assume a defensive position, and make it hard for him to overtake, for my safety. This is why people double up on club rides, it makes dodgy overtakes less likely. Ability to hold a pleasant conversation is a happy by-product.

 

[dellzeqq]

Here is a perfect example of the kind of selfish attitude that causes cyclists to get a bad rep.

I'll live with that. We're on the road, riding sensibly and, possibly defensively. If you can't get past - wait.

 

[freecyclist]

That's common road courtesy, and I am sure you won't find many on here who would hold up traffic in the way you describe.

On the other hand, in pinch points where I've had a car try to force me off the road because he misjudged my speed, or his speed, or wasn't aware, or something distracted him; there I will assume a defensive position, and make it hard for him to overtake, for my safety. This is why people double up on club rides, it makes dodgy overtakes less likely. Ability to hold a pleasant conversation is a happy by-product.

Yes maybe.
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.
And theres allways the perception issue - its allways going to be perceived as selfish cyclists holding up mr motorist but you will rightly counter who cares about perception.
Its not as clear cut issue as it seems to most cyclists. Personally id be happy to give up the right to cycle 2 abreast if it meant cycling being more favourably regarded by society as a whole.

 

[VamP]

Yes maybe.
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.
And theres allways the perception issue - its allways going to be perceived as selfish cyclists holding up mr motorist but you will rightly counter who cares about perception.
Its not as clear cut issue as it seems to most cyclists. Personally id be happy to give up the right to cycle 2 abreast if it meant cycling being more favourably regarded by society as a whole.

Still a darn sight easier to overtake than, say, a tractor. The car should always move into the opposite carriageway, anyway, it's the assumption that you can overtake cyclists while staying on your side of the road that leads to 90% of dangerous overtakes anyway.

I think the trade off you raise of giving up cycling 2 abreast against getting better recognition by the public is just utopia. Most drivers do not get annoyed by being delayed a little while. Those that do are one that either never think about the issue of cyclists and road safety, or are pathological haters already. They'll be the last ones to embrace cycling. Yet they will, when oil reaches $500 a barell, we'll have a nation of cyclists.

 

[Little yellow Brompton]

Still a darn sight easier to overtake than, say, a tractor. The car should always move into the opposite carriageway, anyway, it's the assumption that you can overtake cyclists while staying on your side of the road that leads to 90% of dangerous overtakes anyway.

I think the trade off you raise of giving up cycling 2 abreast against getting better recognition by the public is just utopia. Most drivers do not get annoyed by being delayed a little while. Those that do are one that either never think about the issue of cyclists and road safety, or are pathological haters already. They'll be the last ones to embrace cycling. Yet they will, when oil reaches $500 a barell, we'll have a nation of cyclists.

No we won't! We will just have a nation of POBs. Just as now there are motorists ( those that treat it as ahobby, an interest , enthusiasts) and drivers , so we have cyclists and POBs

 

[VamP]

No we won't! We will just have a nation of POBs. Just as now there are motorists ( those that treat it as ahobby, an interest , enthusiasts) and drivers , so we have cyclists and POBs

I had to google it. It's a long way down this list. But I take your point. Still, these POBs will be a darn sight less lethal than the same people inside cars.

Visiting Amsterdam is a good way to get a feel for what the future will look like (no I am not talking about the red light district.)

 

[Dan B]

No we won't! We will just have a nation of POBs. Just as now there are motorists ( those that treat it as ahobby, an interest , enthusiasts) and drivers , so we have cyclists and POBs

I will be perfectly happy with a nation of POBs.

 

[Bicycle]

Given that the vehicle ahead (i.e. the cyclist) has a better view of oncoming traffic and very likely a better sense of his own speed, I cannot think of any reason this decision would be better made by the motorist instead. Can you?

Dan B,


You propose that the decision on when it is safe for a car to overtake a bicycle is better made by the cyclist.

I'm not sure quite what you're proposing, but it seems slightly improbable to me.

You ask for a reason why this decision would be better made by the motorist.

Well... I've never made that decision for a passing motorist when cycling and a cyclist has never made it for me when I'm driving. Never.

But.. to your question:

1. The motorist is tested to a minimum standard of competency - or is accompanied by a qualified driver.

2. The motorist has mirrors (I am more aware of what is behind me when driving than cycling*)

3. The motorist will be aware of the length of his/her vehicle, its accelaration, width, ability to pass before any visible hazards make an overtake unwise.

4. If any hazard is visible to the cyclist ahead and not to the driver behind, it is by definition not a safe place to overtake - an overtaking driver must have sufficient forward vision to be sure that there is no predictable hazard. So your notion that the rider has a better view of the road ahead seems not to have much purchase.

5. The cyclist may well have a better sense of his/her own speed, but not necessarily. However, this may not be pertinant. An overtaking driver needs only to have sufficient awareness of the relative speeds of both vehicles. The passing driver (who has had the cyclist in constant view for some time) is very likely to have a better idea of the relative speeds than the cyclist.


I'm a little surprised really that anyone would suggest that a cyclist is in a better position than the motorist behind them to decide when it is safe to pass. That you suggest this doesn't lessen my surprise.

If we really are going for this option, what would the universally recognised signal be?


(* It may surprise you that I am more aware when driving of what is behind me than when I cycle, but it is so. It is also so for everyone I know who both cycles and drives. Why?

1. Most road traffic is travelling at my speed. It therefore looms into my patch of road far more slowly when I drive than when I cycle.

2. I have three mirrors on my car and have been drilled for many years to peeki into them at regular intervals.

3. I don't have to turn my head to look in my mirrors in a car. I barely have to move it.

I know that many bicycles have mirrors (my son has a clever one on his drops) but these rarely offer the panorama given by most car mirrors.)

Addendum: This is an enjoyable thread, but I'm not sure contributors need to get quite as cross as some appear to get over this subject. We are all road users and ought simply to rub along.