Doubling Up On Road

[Bicycle]

If your decision is to stay behind them or to run them off the road in the process of passing because there is not space to go round them, it is not much of a decision. Sounds entirely like a semantic argument to me, and as such I shall bow out

Sounds like I'm right to me.

The driver of the following vehicle makes the decision.

There have been plenty of cases where the decision has been a poor one and there has been contact or worse.

The following driver always makes the decision.

It really isn't to do with semantics. It's more to do with A&E statistics, sadly.

 

[MrHappyCyclist]

This is a bloody stupid discussion.

Yes, it is. Unfortunately, the Highway Code wording leaves the potential for misinterpretation. The picture, however, is quite clear: you should provide a significantly greater clearance than anyone would normally give a car. It is this principle that the writers were trying to establish in their rather clumsy way.

 

[MrHappyCyclist]

Do you have any evidence for that assertion?

 

[MrHappyCyclist]

The following driver always makes the decision.

I have to agree that, as a statement of fact, this is correct. If the driver behind decides to take a risk with the cyclist's safety in a given situation, then there is sod all the cyclist can do about it.

All we can do is to take up a road position that would make it even more risky to pass, in the hope that the driver will decide the massive risk outweighs the usually minuscule benefit that would be gained.

There a still a significant number of drivers who will squeeze past extremely dangerously anyway in order to get to the next red light a few seconds earlier. This is reinforced by the fact that the police generally will not do anything unless the motor vehicle actually hits the cyclist, probably because they know it would be futile.

 

[freecyclist]

do not ever, ever assume any responsibility for any other cyclist on an organised ride. You're not up to the job

Judging by your web site and the youtube videos of your rides neither are you.
Unfortunately the selfishness of a few taints the image of all cyclists.

 

[dellzeqq]

Sounds like I'm right to me.

The driver of the following vehicle makes the decision.

There have been plenty of cases where the decision has been a poor one and there has been contact or worse.

The following driver always makes the decision.

It really isn't to do with semantics. It's more to do with A&E statistics, sadly.

there's been plenty of cases where the cyclist makes that decision extremely unlikely, and, further, it's up to us to exert ourselves in this regard.

Now, a little while ago, weather conditions forced a change in the route to a road that I had always avoided. I knew that if cars overtook then the cyclists (there were about 60 of them) would be put at risk. I took the back with a couple of strong riders and we formed a rolling road block, going up hill at about six miles an hour. One or two cars did get by, and one came very close to putting some of the slower riders in the ditch, but the rest formed a queue stretching back about twenty cars. Job done, as best we could.

Equally I've seen tail-enders not take up a defensive position, cars steam by, then the drivers realise that something was coming the other way, and swerve left in to the bunch. That's lackadaisical.

 

[dellzeqq]

Judging by your web site and the youtube videos of your rides neither are you.
Unfortunately the selfishness of a few taints the image of all cyclists.

60 odd rides, with numbers averaging 90 this year and I can't recall an incident of a car offing a cyclist. That, my friend, is called a result.

 

[Andy84]

<br /><br /><br />

Freecyclist, if you picture yourself driving along a 'not too busy' road, with cars coming towards you in the opposite direction; wouldn't it be easier to find a gap in the flow of the other side of the roads traffic to be able to overtake a shorter "length" of cyclist riding two abreast, than it would be to overtake a double as long "length" of cyclists riding single file?

Wouldn't the single file cyclists be 'selfish' to be taking up a larger stretch of the road?

 

[freecyclist]

<br /><br /><br />

Freecyclist, if you picture yourself driving along a 'not too busy' road, with cars coming towards you in the opposite direction; wouldn't it be easier to find a gap in the flow of the other side of the roads traffic to be able to overtake a shorter "length" of cyclist riding two abreast, than it would be to overtake a double as long "length" of cyclists riding single file?

Wouldn't the single file cyclists be 'selfish' to be taking up a larger stretch of the road?

You could argue that and in some circumstances you may be right. But there are some circumstances where a following motorist is more easily able to pass single line cyclists. A single cyclist position in secondary just is more easy to get past than 2 cyclists abreast or another car for that matter. Surely we should be looking to facilitate cars getting past where possible and not digging our heels in adopting the rigid defiant attitude that goes along the lines of we're legally entitled to do it so nothing else matters.
But i accept your point that in some circumstances it is fine its just the attitude that some have that concerns me.

 

[Red Light]

From Paddington to Whitehall at 08.40 on a Monday, nothing can touch my bicycle and I whizz past cars.

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

 

[freecyclist]

60 odd rides, with numbers averaging 90 this year and I can't recall an incident of a car offing a cyclist. That, my friend, is called a result.

Im pleased to hear it. That is one box ticked. Are you ticking the minimising inconveniencing other road users box? Minimising annoyance to local residents ? I woudnt sing your own praises to highly on the basis you havnt had an incident yet , that should be your minimum acceptable standard.

 

[dellzeqq]

Im pleased to hear it. That is one box ticked. Are you ticking the minimising inconveniencing other road users box? Minimising annoyance to local residents ? I woudnt sing your own praises to highly on the basis you havnt had an incident yet , that should be your minimum acceptable standard.

that's a strange way of putting it......

the trouble is that this insipid, mimsy, 'aren't I the polite one' attitude gets people killed. If you're going to promulgate the idea that you just ride and hope, you're not just rejecting thirty years of wisdom, but also, in the event that anybody is gives these ideas houseroom, putting people at risk.

Safety has to be the number one consideration. If it's safe to single out, then single out, but, if it isn't, be strong and look after yourself and others. Don't get doored, don't get left hooked and don't get passed when it puts you at risk.

 

[Andy84]

You could argue that and in some circumstances you may be right. But there are some circumstances where a following motorist is more easily able to pass single line cyclists. A single cyclist position in secondary just is more easy to get past than 2 cyclists abreast or another car for that matter. Surely we should be looking to facilitate cars getting past where possible and not digging our heels in adopting the rigid defiant attitude that goes along the lines of we're legally entitled to do it so nothing else matters.
But i accept your point that in some circumstances it is fine its just the attitude that some have that concerns me.

Sorry if I've got this wrong, but it seems that your claim that 'a single person cyclist position in secondary just is more easy to get past' is actually, 'if they're only in single file, then I can squeeze through to gain that little bit of road, then repeat this maybe two or three times to get past all of them, instead of waiting until it's safe to perform a safe overtaking manouvere"
I originally posted this (regarding group riding) as you replied to dellzeqq regarding the selfishness of his rides. Do you just have a problem with group rides?

 

[freecyclist]

Sorry if I've got this wrong, but it seems that your claim that 'a single person cyclist position in secondary just is more easy to get past' is actually, 'if they're only in single file, then I can squeeze through to gain that little bit of road, then repeat this maybe two or three times to get past all of them, instead of waiting until it's safe to perform a safe overtaking manouvere"
I originally posted this (regarding group riding) as you replied to dellzeqq regarding the selfishness of his rides. Do you just have a problem with group rides?

Sorry if ive got the wrong idea of you but it seems like your saying you want to make it as difficult for anyone to get past you whether you are riding solo or in a group.
Are you saying that cars should only overtake any cyclist if they were able to overtake a car in the same position ?

 

[StuartG]

This does feel an artificial conversation. I regularly ride with a group and we have not even had need to discuss when we ride single file or two abreast.

Basically if there is enough room to overtake then riding two abreast halves the overtaking distance and is hence best for the motorist, safest for us and doesn't disturb our chat. When there is not then a call of 'car up' from the backrider melts the group into single file creating enough space for the overtake. If single file would be too tight an overtake the back rider stays silent and the two abreast blocks a dangerous overtake.

Simples.

As for questioning Del's ability to manage a ride. Well freecyclist I think you are speaking from a distinct position of ignorance. I don't think I'd rather have anyone else in front, behind or at the side. No one I know does more to intelligently minimise risk at great personal cost. And i don't think you will find anyone who has done a FNRttC who would say different. Check any FNRttC thread on the Informal Ride section of CC immediately following the ride. Or do one yourself. You will learn a lot ...