Cycling two abreast....agree or not?

[Ares]

The Moose said:

ddom said:

Cycling two a breast isn't an issue for me, it works well enough if the riders have some discipline. When a group of 10 or so are out it's necessary to keep everyone together and a longer single file string would invite cars to squeeze past and drop into the group, which is really fking bad news.

Those aren’t the only 2 options. Maybe not riding in a pack of 10 on public roads and leaving large enough gaps for cars to drop in between each rider or two?

But a pack of ten (i.e. 5x2) will be roughly the same length as a 7.5 tonne box vane, but not as wide, not as difficult to see past and slower so a lot easier to overtake.

Or do you incessantly bh about 7.5 tonnes trucks too?

[NewUsername]

Hoofy said:

ddom said:

Alucidnation said:

Probably caused by cyclists.


I think if cyclists had to pay RFL and insurance, many would think twice.

I do.

Glad to see the full compliment of idiotic comments are now represented

When you say you do, you don't specifically pay VED/RFL for your bicycle(s) do you?

And does your bicycle insurance cover damage to third parties?

.

Idiotic comment, it would merely cost the government money as it would be a paper exercise as cycles would be zero rated like cars with no emissions.....

Also most folk who cycle regularly are members of BCF and with that you get third party insurance.

[RobM77]

Ares said:

Dog Star said:

Slightly off-topic - what is it with these road cyclists and their attire - porky middle aged blokes dressed up in skintight lycra, pot bellies on show for all to see. They look utterly ridiculous, and when they're all in the same outfit..... Do they actually think they're Chris Froome and that's their physique (they always try to bluster their way around why they shave their legs too), or are they some sort of sexual deviants? I think it's really, really odd.

Full disclosure - I'm quite partial to porky middle aged women in lycra so maybe they're on to something?

Do you feel the same way about runners in short and trainers? Or horse riders in jodhpurs?

Quite!

In reply to Dog Star: I regularly cycle in the local area on my hybrid bike to buy eggs, go to the Post Office etc in my everyday clothes and it's fine. However, get out on a road bike doing between 15-30mph for an hour or two and normal clothes become uncomfortable and restrictive. It's as simple as that. Same with any sport.

[yellowjack]

Ares said:

craig_m67 said:

Here in Australia, it’s perfectly legal to ride two abreast and take up the whole lane. I’ve no issue with it whatsoever.. to do so would be pointless, as it’s legal

What does the law/Highway Code say in the UK?

The same. It's perfectly legal. (except in the minds of those who believe the road is 'theirs', (and have small penises))

This. The whole thread began off the back of a story in the press. A story about a campaign to CLARIFY the rules through a CHANGE IN WORDING in the Highway Code. Not a re-write of the rule mind. Just a change in wording so that it is clear to imbeciles that "not more than two abreast" really doesn't translate to the "Single File! Single File you cts! It's the fking law, I read it in a book of guidance that isn't even the law. Now get in the fking gutter where you all belong..." that some dribbling morons seem to think it means.

[Ares]

Hoofy said:

ddom said:

Alucidnation said:

Probably caused by cyclists.


I think if cyclists had to pay RFL and insurance, many would think twice.

I do.

Glad to see the full compliment of idiotic comments are now represented

When you say you do, you don't specifically pay VED/RFL for your bicycle(s) do you?

And does your bicycle insurance cover damage to third parties?

FWIW I don't agree that cyclists should have to pay tax or insurance at the moment because ultimately we want to encourage more cyclists, people on public transport and walkers, and fewer people to drive if we're going to sort out this climate change problem.

If ANY cyclist generated the emissions that triggered RFL, they would levy it, I have no doubt. But the zero emission bike pays the same as the zero emission driver.

And yes, my insurance covers damage to third parties.

[TimoMak]

Single file is much safer. The point about "ah but it takes twice as long" is complete nonsense.

There is one major problem with the suggested changes. Cyclists are militant tts. Giving the overtakee (in their deranged minds) some kind of a say in whether or not they are overtaken will probably not result in harmonious interactions, particularly since most people never read the HC anyway.

Some cycling muppets in the middle of the lane holding everyone up is unlikely to result in friendly and positive behaviour. Cyclists are lemmings really and giving them more ways of committing suicide is not going to improve the accident stats.

We may find in future more are beaten to death at the side of the road than get run over by left turning trucks which also appear to be magnets for them.

[popeyewhite]

Ares said:

craig_m67 said:

Here in Australia, it’s perfectly legal to ride two abreast and take up the whole lane. I’ve no issue with it whatsoever.. to do so would be pointless, as it’s legal

What does the law/Highway Code say in the UK?

The same. It's perfectly legal. (except in the minds of those who believe the road is 'theirs', (and have small penises))

Actually it says a bit more.

"You should...never ride more than two abreast, and ride in single file on narrow or busy roads and round bends."

I've highlighted what I suspect is the contentious bit.

Incidentally I'm hung quite averagely and ride, drive and run on some quite busy roads. I do think it's selfish whatever mode of transport you prefer to block another road user's progress.

[kambites]

popeyewhite said:

Actually it says a bit more.

"You should...never ride more than two abreast, and ride in single file on narrow or busy roads and round bends."

To be fair, "should" in the highway code is a common sensor advisory not a statement of legal requirement. If it was a legal requirement it would say "must".

[ddom]

TimoMak said:

Single file is much safer. The point about "ah but it takes twice as long" is complete nonsense.

There is one major problem with the suggest changes. Cyclists are militant tts. Giving the overtakee (in their deranged minds) some kind of a say in whether or not they are overtaken will probably not result in harmonious interactions, particularly since most people never read the HC anyway.

Some cycling muppets in the middle of the lane holding everyone up is unlikely to result in friendly and positive behaviour. Cyclists are lemmings really and giving them more ways of committing suicide is not going to improve the accident stats.

We may find in future more are beaten to death at the side of the road than get run over by left turning trucks which also appear to be magnets for them.

Life not going well?

[Ares]

kambites said:

popeyewhite said:

Actually it says a bit more.

"You should...never ride more than two abreast, and ride in single file on narrow or busy roads and round bends."

To be fair, "should" in the highway code is a common sensor advisory not a statement of legal requirement. If it was a legal requirement it would say "must".

Which is why it is perfectly legal.

[TimoMak]

ddom said:

Life not going well?

It is for me, but then again I don't cycle..

[Ares]

TimoMak said:

Single file is much safer. The point about "ah but it takes twice as long" is complete nonsense.

There is one major problem with the suggested changes. Cyclists are militant tts. Giving the overtakee (in their deranged minds) some kind of a say in whether or not they are overtaken will probably not result in harmonious interactions, particularly since most people never read the HC anyway.

Some cycling muppets in the middle of the lane holding everyone up is unlikely to result in friendly and positive behaviour. Cyclists are lemmings really and giving them more ways of committing suicide is not going to improve the accident stats.

We may find in future more are beaten to death at the side of the road than get run over by left turning trucks which also appear to be magnets for them.

You sound like you could use some fresh air to calm down my love.


Out of interest, are you over the recommended weight for your height, sport a goaty beard or similar 'trendy' facial hair and have an affinity for heavy metal music? Asking for a Nissan 350Z driver hating friend.

[TimoMak]

Ares said:

TimoMak said:

Single file is much safer. The point about "ah but it takes twice as long" is complete nonsense.

There is one major problem with the suggested changes. Cyclists are militant tts. Giving the overtakee (in their deranged minds) some kind of a say in whether or not they are overtaken will probably not result in harmonious interactions, particularly since most people never read the HC anyway.

Some cycling muppets in the middle of the lane holding everyone up is unlikely to result in friendly and positive behaviour. Cyclists are lemmings really and giving them more ways of committing suicide is not going to improve the accident stats.

We may find in future more are beaten to death at the side of the road than get run over by left turning trucks which also appear to be magnets for them.

You sound like you could use some fresh air to calm down my love.


Out of interest, are you over the recommended weight for your height, sport a goaty beard or similar 'trendy' facial hair and have an affinity for heavy metal music? Asking for a Nissan 350Z driver hating friend.

No I'm not. Out of interest are you a cycling ? Only asking as there seem to be quite a few of them on this thread.

[JD82]

RobM77 said:

Ares said:

Dog Star said:

Slightly off-topic - what is it with these road cyclists and their attire - porky middle aged blokes dressed up in skintight lycra, pot bellies on show for all to see. They look utterly ridiculous, and when they're all in the same outfit..... Do they actually think they're Chris Froome and that's their physique (they always try to bluster their way around why they shave their legs too), or are they some sort of sexual deviants? I think it's really, really odd.

Full disclosure - I'm quite partial to porky middle aged women in lycra so maybe they're on to something?

Do you feel the same way about runners in short and trainers? Or horse riders in jodhpurs?

Quite!

In reply to Dog Star: I regularly cycle in the local area on my hybrid bike to buy eggs, go to the Post Office etc in my everyday clothes and it's fine. However, get out on a road bike doing between 15-30mph for an hour or two and normal clothes become uncomfortable and restrictive. It's as simple as that. Same with any sport.

Exactly. Would you wear shoes outside because it's more comfortable than bare feet? Or hiking boots for climbing Snowdon? Or a rain coat if it rains? Ad infinitum. All these are possible NOT to do, but why would you purposefully cause yourself discomfort?

[NewUsername]

TimoMak said:

Ares said:

TimoMak said:

Single file is much safer. The point about "ah but it takes twice as long" is complete nonsense.

There is one major problem with the suggested changes. Cyclists are militant tts. Giving the overtakee (in their deranged minds) some kind of a say in whether or not they are overtaken will probably not result in harmonious interactions, particularly since most people never read the HC anyway.

Some cycling muppets in the middle of the lane holding everyone up is unlikely to result in friendly and positive behaviour. Cyclists are lemmings really and giving them more ways of committing suicide is not going to improve the accident stats.

We may find in future more are beaten to death at the side of the road than get run over by left turning trucks which also appear to be magnets for them.

You sound like you could use some fresh air to calm down my love.


Out of interest, are you over the recommended weight for your height, sport a goaty beard or similar 'trendy' facial hair and have an affinity for heavy metal music? Asking for a Nissan 350Z driver hating friend.

No I'm not. Out of interest are you a cycling ? Only asking as there seem to be quite a few of them on this thread.

TimoMak, presenting the strong argument for post natal abortion

[yellowjack]

popeyewhite said:

Actually it says a bit more.

"You should...never ride more than two abreast, and ride in single file on narrow or busy roads and round bends."

I've highlighted what I suspect is the contentious bit.

Incidentally I'm hung quite averagely and ride, drive and run on some quite busy roads. I do think it's selfish whatever mode of transport you prefer to block another road user's progress.

Try looking up the difference between "should" and "must". Twelve abreast is legal. Because the "no more than two abreast" thing is a "should" rule, not a "must". And in much the same vein as many drivers disregard "should" rules in the HC, some cyclists disregard them too.

Another point to note is that riding in single file around bends and on narrow roads often seems to encourage Darwinian stupidity in drivers. Also, single file means exactly that. Single file. What it doesn't mean is "pressed hard over to the left, pedals clipping the grass verge". Which many drivers seem to want. The simple fact of the matter is that if it's safe to pass one cyclist on a bend, then it ought to be safe to pass two cyclists riding side-by-side on the same bend. You can either see that the road is clear ahead or you can't.

Take "Do not overtake where you might come into conflict with other road users. For example... approaching or at a road junction on either side of the road" as an example. Routinely disregarded by drivers passing cyclists. Probably because they don't regard cyclists as legitimate road users so they can be ignored. I get overtaken by drivers regularly when I'm turning right. Even when I'm committed to the turn. Sometimes they overtake on the right even when there is MORE space on my left because of my road position. The more cyclists are treated like they don't exist, the more they'll behave like they don't exist. If a cyclist regularly has drivers fail to give way when turning onto a major road at a 'T' junction, why are drivers so surprised/upset when that same cyclist does exactly the same thing?

When ALL drivers behave perfectly, and obey ALL of the law ALL of the time, I'd expect ALL cyclists to behave impeccably and obey those same laws too. But people in glass houses shouldn't be the ones starting to throw stones.

[roadsmash]

I believe that all road users should take some form of proficiency test. Perhaps some kind of theory test relating to the way different users and vehicles use the road, it could be cheap, no more than £50 in cost. I’m not sure why so many cyclists are averse to this.

I’m not a keen cyclist. I cycle now and again.

I don’t think the cycling side by side thing is a huge problem. Over-exaggerated nonsense.

Cyclists can be an occasional annoyance. Regardless if they are cycling on their own or in a pack.

But I always think to myself, if I ever knocked someone off their bike and killed them as a result of being impatient, I’d simply never forgive myself.

I’m not saying cyclists haven’t annoyed me in the past, they have, and a lot of cyclists are indeed tossers. Same with car drivers.

Sadly, the world is filled with tossers. Road users and pedestrians alike.

Give everyone a wide berth, IMHO.

[cslwannabe]

Personally I think it’s ignorant but I rarely cycle on the road - find its best avoided tbh. When I have cycled on the road with someone else it’s never even occurred to me to cycle side by side. I might think differently if I was out with an organised group however.

[Hoofy]

NewUsername said:

Hoofy said:

ddom said:

Alucidnation said:

Probably caused by cyclists.


I think if cyclists had to pay RFL and insurance, many would think twice.

I do.

Glad to see the full compliment of idiotic comments are now represented

When you say you do, you don't specifically pay VED/RFL for your bicycle(s) do you?

And does your bicycle insurance cover damage to third parties?

.

Idiotic comment, it would merely cost the government money as it would be a paper exercise as cycles would be zero rated like cars with no emissions.....

Also most folk who cycle regularly are members of BCF and with that you get third party insurance.

Hardly an idiotic comment. It was a question. Notice the "?"?

Questions mean I learn things.

On the subject of emissions, I guess it will be interesting to see what happens as ICE cars are removed from the road over time and the tax-take is less.

[Gweeds]

Quite a few here who clearly weren't hugged as children.