Police pull over 'two abrest' cyclists - argument ensues
Discussion
This news story has been doing the rounds over the last few days, can't seem to find it on PH though.
Two cyclists pulled over by the police on a main road for riding two abreast and 'causing other drivers to drive carelessly'.
An argument and various threats then occur between the officer and cyclists, all caught on video of course.
I'm not a cyclist, and very occasionally I get a little irritated by them, but in this case I think they were absolutely 100% in the right, both legally and otherwise.
It's also a good example of a Police officer being annoyed about something and then making up laws/rules in his own head to suit his argument/opinion, which I'm sure we've all been on the receiving end of at some point. I know I have.
Have a watch:
http://www.cyclingweekly.com/videos/watch/watch-cy...
Two cyclists pulled over by the police on a main road for riding two abreast and 'causing other drivers to drive carelessly'.
An argument and various threats then occur between the officer and cyclists, all caught on video of course.
I'm not a cyclist, and very occasionally I get a little irritated by them, but in this case I think they were absolutely 100% in the right, both legally and otherwise.
It's also a good example of a Police officer being annoyed about something and then making up laws/rules in his own head to suit his argument/opinion, which I'm sure we've all been on the receiving end of at some point. I know I have.
Have a watch:
http://www.cyclingweekly.com/videos/watch/watch-cy...
What got up my nose on this is the cyclist was spoiling for a fight. He says I am going to enjoy this, or words to that effect before the officer had said a word.
They then start trading comments, the cyclist, "I have read the law"
Highway code 66 does say "you should not ride two abreast on narrow or busy roads" , the cyclist said it was not a "B Road". I cannot see a mention of the B road being an issue.
The problem is the Highway code is advisory in many areas so legally I think the cyclist was correct in they were within the law. The policeman was correct in saying that drivers do take risks to pass and perhaps a better idea to ride in single file said nicely might have been better.
To me it was two wrongs, but with helmet cams and attitudes no one looks good in this.
They then start trading comments, the cyclist, "I have read the law"
Highway code 66 does say "you should not ride two abreast on narrow or busy roads" , the cyclist said it was not a "B Road". I cannot see a mention of the B road being an issue.
The problem is the Highway code is advisory in many areas so legally I think the cyclist was correct in they were within the law. The policeman was correct in saying that drivers do take risks to pass and perhaps a better idea to ride in single file said nicely might have been better.
To me it was two wrongs, but with helmet cams and attitudes no one looks good in this.
spaximus said:
What got up my nose on this is the cyclist was spoiling for a fight. He says I am going to enjoy this, or words to that effect before the officer had said a word.
They then start trading comments, the cyclist, "I have read the law"
Highway code 66 does say "you should not ride two abreast on narrow or busy roads" , the cyclist said it was not a "B Road". I cannot see a mention of the B road being an issue.
The problem is the Highway code is advisory in many areas so legally I think the cyclist was correct in they were within the law. The policeman was correct in saying that drivers do take risks to pass and perhaps a better idea to ride in single file said nicely might have been better.
To me it was two wrongs, but with helmet cams and attitudes no one looks good in this.
Agree totally. The cyclist was after a barney, and the copper isn't going to back down is he? Only thing I would add is that it looked like a fairly busy road to me, but how do you quantify that?They then start trading comments, the cyclist, "I have read the law"
Highway code 66 does say "you should not ride two abreast on narrow or busy roads" , the cyclist said it was not a "B Road". I cannot see a mention of the B road being an issue.
The problem is the Highway code is advisory in many areas so legally I think the cyclist was correct in they were within the law. The policeman was correct in saying that drivers do take risks to pass and perhaps a better idea to ride in single file said nicely might have been better.
To me it was two wrongs, but with helmet cams and attitudes no one looks good in this.
Generally riding two abreast makes for a shorter overtake but the overtaking driver has to move over more to the other side of the road to make the move(although you shouldn't be passing anything if someone is coming in the opposite direction). However most drivers don't seem to understand this, expect single file and having seen plenty of "punishment passes" to riders riding two up, we always go single file when riding and having a car come up behind.
....and yes the cyclist here was being unreasonable as was the police officer.
....and yes the cyclist here was being unreasonable as was the police officer.
To be honest, I think the cyclists are idiots. They seem to be on a fast and fairly wide road where cars could safely overtake a single cyclist but two abreast would likely cause a holdup. Whether they can legally be a bell end is another thing altogether.
Up in the Mendip hills you see hundreds of cyclists getting in the way in big groups, and as soon as you pass one group you'll find another within a minute or two. They never do anything to let traffic pass. I get that it is a nice place to ride, walk, or drive, but they can be a menace in some areas.
I never get annoyed by a single cyclist, but when they are unnecessarily two abreast, or in a big pack, it's just antisocial.
Up in the Mendip hills you see hundreds of cyclists getting in the way in big groups, and as soon as you pass one group you'll find another within a minute or two. They never do anything to let traffic pass. I get that it is a nice place to ride, walk, or drive, but they can be a menace in some areas.
I never get annoyed by a single cyclist, but when they are unnecessarily two abreast, or in a big pack, it's just antisocial.
Had this happen (strangely in Essex) many years ago. Travelling through Chelmsford and 2 abreast in a line of traffic approaching a roundabout - traffic was going so slow a child could have walked quicker. Plod came from behind in jam sandwich (shows how long ago) and asked us to single up over PA system. We singled up (risking him or other motorist driving us left when we got to the roundabout and went straight on). Anyway, 8 miles on we went down a slip rod into quiet country lanes and doubled up to find him stopping us a mile further on (he'd deliberately targetted us.) Similar conversation ensued during which he said "its 2 in the afternoon, and there's motorists out there who've been drinking! " Took all our details including employer! and we took his number (he refused to give other details) for the British Cycling Federation (now BC) which we were members of. Informed BCF the next day who said it was out of order, he was over-zealous and we'd probably never hear again. We didn't but it left a bad taste. About time they pulled the motorists who are unable to overtake cycles (or cars) safely. We see plenty of these poor motorists when we're driving also.
Edited by Fastpedeller on Monday 22 May 19:01
spaximus said:
The problem is the Highway code is advisory in many areas so legally I think the cyclist was correct in they were within the law. The policeman was correct in saying that drivers do take risks to pass and perhaps a better idea to ride in single file said nicely might have been better.
This. There's the law and there's militant male cyclists who are never wrong. Morally they could help other motorists but they won't. Because they are cyclists. spaximus said:
What got up my nose on this is the cyclist was spoiling for a fight. He says I am going to enjoy this, or words to that effect before the officer had said a word.
I'm guessing he's like that because he probably has drivers shouting at him on a weekly basis regarding the two-abreast thing, so he knew what was coming.Plus, he's probably absolutely sick of hearing it.
But I will agree he was spoiling for a fight from the beginning, which isn't helpful.
It seems a simple matter of common sense. I found myself today behind some poor wheezing sod cycling up a hill on a single lane road, in the middle of nowhere, with a tailback behind him, and a completely empty wide pavement.
The law says he can ride on the road. Reality suggests many motorists were taking a risk because all that happened was they were pissed off and took risks to floor it and get past in the gaps in anything coming the other way.
Same with the two-abreast mob, whatever the law says it seems common sense that you're more likely to get knocked off your bike if you ride two-abreast so you can talk to your mate.
The law says he can ride on the road. Reality suggests many motorists were taking a risk because all that happened was they were pissed off and took risks to floor it and get past in the gaps in anything coming the other way.
Same with the two-abreast mob, whatever the law says it seems common sense that you're more likely to get knocked off your bike if you ride two-abreast so you can talk to your mate.
NinjaPower said:
spaximus said:
What got up my nose on this is the cyclist was spoiling for a fight. He says I am going to enjoy this, or words to that effect before the officer had said a word.
I'm guessing he's like that because he probably has drivers shouting at him on a weekly basis regarding the two-abreast thing, so he knew what was coming.Plus, he's probably absolutely sick of hearing it.
But I will agree he was spoiling for a fight from the beginning, which isn't helpful.
Isn't this a case of blame the law rather than the cyclists?
They are obeying the rules as far as I can see, and the officer tries to tell them they aren't.
If we don't want cyclists riding side by side, then the law needs to be changed to preclude this. You can't really get angry at people for sticking to the letter of the law.
They are obeying the rules as far as I can see, and the officer tries to tell them they aren't.
If we don't want cyclists riding side by side, then the law needs to be changed to preclude this. You can't really get angry at people for sticking to the letter of the law.
spookly said:
Up in the Mendip hills you see hundreds of cyclists getting in the way in big groups, and as soon as you pass one group you'll find another within a minute or two. They never do anything to let traffic pass. I get that it is a nice place to ride, walk, or drive, but they can be a menace in some areas.
I never get annoyed by a single cyclist, but when they are unnecessarily two abreast, or in a big pack, it's just antisocial.
So 'hundreds of cyclists' is antisocial? That's a bit ironic isn't it? How about never letting traffic past - has it occured to you that they ARE the traffic? Perhaps it's you who is being antisocial considering them to be a 'menace' that you desperately need to pass? I never get annoyed by a single cyclist, but when they are unnecessarily two abreast, or in a big pack, it's just antisocial.
swisstoni said:
I'm with the policeman on this. Cycling in line is clearly the most considerate way, if not illegal.
Why? You need a bigger gap to overtake two cyclists who are line-astern than two who are side-by-side. As a driver, I much prefer pairs of cyclists cycling side-by-side, personally. But then I'm not the sort of driver who overtakes single-file cyclists while there is traffic coming the other way...
Edited by kambites on Monday 22 May 19:17
Cyclists moan that they want to be given a wide berth when being overtaken - which is fair enough. But when they are two abreast it makes life much more difficult and dangerous for the driver, especially nervous drivers who dont have the confidence to make a quick overtake.
So whilst the may be 'legally' right, all they are doing is antagonising motorists and just reinforcing a perceived stereotype that cyclists hate motorists.
So whilst the may be 'legally' right, all they are doing is antagonising motorists and just reinforcing a perceived stereotype that cyclists hate motorists.
Gassing Station | General Gassing | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff