What is the Law (UK) when it comes to cycling in the road?

[growingvegetables]

Eeeeh, Hawk - we're getting there, oh so slowly, but it's like drawing teeth.

There's a great chunk in the middle of your posting ....... hey, I like the way you balance "selfless" cycling with assertiveness - like taking primary. And there's any number of situations when riding 2-abreast is no more than exactly the same assertiveness - laying claim to a safe space.

But then ...... you lost me, big time.

What I really despise on the roads is any road user thinking they are superior - we see it all the time, for example: "You don't have a say on the roads because we pay for them", MGIF attitudes and SMIDGAF incidents.

OK .... bit of a red herring, imho? Nothing whatsoever to do with riding 2-abreast? Or have I missed something?

why do some cyclists fling this attitude back at car drivers with 2abreast riding when it is CLEARLY unreasonable,

Huuuh? Obvious question - unreasonable to whom?.

All us regular cyclists know such an attitude is counterproductive to both road safety and general harmony on the roads, so why do some cyclists fling this attitude back at car drivers with 2abreast riding when it is CLEARLY unreasonable, red light jumping ... and the like.

Ummmm - where's the connection? Between RLJing and riding 2-abreast? One is illegal and dangerous, the other is perfectly legal and should be treated as safe (except when it is objectively dangerous)?

With respect, there's nothing in there that suggests "regular cyclist talk", but plenty to suggest "driver-who-gets-frustrated-by-cyclists-riding-two-abreast-who-get-in-his-way" talk ...... back to that slippery slide of language again.

And then “why do some cyclists fling this attitude back at car drivers with 2abreast riding when it is CLEARLY unreasonable “ ------- raises the obvious question, “Unreasonable to whom?”

 

[Hawk]

Sorry I think I managed to lose you there!

The last sections of my post were concerned with attitude on the road. Whilst none of those examples were directly linked to 2abreast riding, I think unnecessary 2abreast riding is an example of a "we are superior, so f**k you" attitude on the road - much as we get from motorists with MGIFs etc. What I meant was that cars sometimes display such an attitude towards cyclists - i.e MGIF or SMIDGAF incidents. The equivalent attitude from cyclists to cars would be unreasonable 2abreast riding.

"Unreasonable" can kinda be measured objectively. Assuming it's perfectly safe to ride either single file or 2abreast, we should do whichever causes the least inconvenience and delay overall to everyone involved.

 

[growingvegetables]

Sorry I think I managed to lose you there! etc

Aha – the dreaded thread loop worm, again. You didn't lose me - you didn't manage to follow me

Ah well - back to a much earlier post; I'll try again .......

Picking up YOUR idea and language, Hawk – and sticking to your scenario, a place where “it's perfectly safe to ride either single file or 2abreast” (that's neat – keeps things clean and clear, on simple principles).

Basic fact – cyclists can cycle two abreast. No argument, no attitude, nothing – it is just a simple fact of life.

So ... on your scenario, we're cycling along 2 abreast.

• Perfectly within our rights, nothing wrong with it, nothing dangerous.
• And as a matter of courtesy (you used the word “selfless” - which kinda sounds a bit saintly, but OK), I personally will happily pull back into single file to let motors past.
• But that is a courtesy. It's an extra. It is a free gift – which I give because I'm a nice guy.
• It's also a free gift I only give on my own terms and at a time of my choosing – ain't no way I'm going to compromise my/my fellow cyclist's safety, just to satisfy another road user's convenience.

There are dozens of GOOD reasons for keeping to cycling two abreast, for not showing the extra courtesy; all sorts – and if I put up a list, it'd take only 5 minutes for cyclists to add yet more

That's the bottom line - the right to use the road. It includes in no sort of order

• riding two-abreast;
• the responsible decision to assertively ride two-abreast;
• a healthy mix of good old-fashioned courtesy;
• a respectful negotiation of space – respectful by cyclist and motorist;
• and NOTHING to do with judgements of unnecessary/unreasonable by ANY but the more "vulnerable".

Aye – but you (I think – if I'm wrong, my apologies) put riding two-abreast, adding those vague and fuzzy “slippery” words like “unncessary” and “unreasonable”, in the same sort of category

• as MGIFs and SMIDGAFs? In my book, these are light-years different; they're expressions of “aggressive entitlement to OTHER road user's space and safety”.
• And as RLJs? Definitely illegal, and ime almost always stupid and dangerous

Sorry, bro – we'll probably have to agree to disagree. There's no way riding two-abreast equates with those. No way.

Fwiw, if I have the slightest inkling that a motorist's come up behind, thinking “That in front is unnecessary/unreasonable”, then all my instincts of self-preservation, and protection for my friend or family member, kick in BIG TIME. As in ... forget the courtesies, we've got a ****-*** behind us.

 

[Pedrosanchezo]

Guys whilst it may be open to interpretation, it is also pretty clear on when and where 2 abreast shouldn't be used. For me this is exactly when it should NOT be considered safe. See quote then link from which it came.


66

You should

• keep both hands on the handlebars except when signalling or changing gear
• keep both feet on the pedals
• never ride more than two abreast, and ride in single file on narrow or busy roads and when riding round bends
• not ride close behind another vehicle
• not carry anything which will affect your balance or may get tangled up with your wheels or chain
• be considerate of other road users, particularly blind and partially sighted pedestrians. Let them know you are there when necessary, for example, by ringing your bell if you have one. It is recommended that a bell be fitted"

http://www.direct.gov.uk/en/TravelAndTransport/Highwaycode/DG_069837

 

[Hawk]

<snip>

To be honest, I think we're basically saying something exceedingly similar. As for whether RLJs etc are relevant, for me they are - they are the backdrop to why being courteous is the way forward. The point is, life is better when you make an effort to be a "nice guy", this applies on the roads for sure

 

[Phill057]

In my experience I have found that if you keep too far in to let them past that they will ignore you and will squeeze you and will judge that they have enough space and race past you. But will move in on the cyclist to gain extra inches. So on narrow roads and streets I will ride out further on the road so that they cannot get past. Thus making the decisions for them and prevent them passing. Be will lit up with plenty of flashing LED's and never ever go cycling with out your Florescent jacket. A lot of motorists are friendly and cortious but it is the minority that are driving far too powerful cars and have no cosideration no respect. The more of us that are out there. They will sit up and take notice.

 

[Hawk]

and never ever go cycling with out your Florescent jacket.

You must be new here....

 

[Phill057]

Thank you for the welcome

 

[Rayvon]

If they complain to me about riding two abreast I simply point out that they too are sat there two abreast but with a (usually) empty seat rather than an occupied one. And if they didn't insist on lugging those extra seats around they would be narrow enough to overtake with no problems. Sadly most of them don't seem to understand irony.

Like it, l'll be using that one