Cycling two abreast....agree or not?

[Falconer]

Change the topic slightly, what about cyclists who refuse to use the cycle track provided and use the road instead ,holding up the traffic?
I know they don’t have to legally, which in my view is wrong especially as their safety seems to be entirely the responsibility of car drivers how ever bad their riding is, but the Highway Code does say you should show consideration to other road users.
The road in question is a busy but narrow A road , you would think anyone with half a brain would rather cycle separated by 4 foot of grass verge than a few inches of fresh(ish) air.

[Rozzers]

Falconer said:

Change the topic slightly, what about cyclists who refuse to use the cycle track provided and use the road instead ,holding up the traffic?
I know they don’t have to legally, which in my view is wrong especially as their safety seems to be entirely the responsibility of car drivers how ever bad their riding is, but the Highway Code does say you should show consideration to other road users.
The road in question is a busy but narrow A road , you would think anyone with half a brain would rather cycle separated by 4 foot of grass verge than a few inches of fresh(ish) air.

If you are in the UK, they are largely useless, unswept, beset by runners wearing headphones, dogs on 20ft leads and then you have to cross the main carriageway at every junction, so if you are over 12 years old most are more dangerous and so awkward to use that cycling is not viable.

Motor vehicles have exclusive use of motorways, but aren’t obliged to over other roads.

Competent drivers can easily deal safely with the average group of cyclists with virtually no delay, caravans are worse, at least you can see round cyclists.

[Castrol for a knave]

Rozzers said:

Falconer said:

Change the topic slightly, what about cyclists who refuse to use the cycle track provided and use the road instead ,holding up the traffic?
I know they don’t have to legally, which in my view is wrong especially as their safety seems to be entirely the responsibility of car drivers how ever bad their riding is, but the Highway Code does say you should show consideration to other road users.
The road in question is a busy but narrow A road , you would think anyone with half a brain would rather cycle separated by 4 foot of grass verge than a few inches of fresh(ish) air.

If you are in the UK, they are largely useless, unswept, beset by runners wearing headphones, dogs on 20ft leads and then you have to cross the main carriageway at every junction, so if you are over 12 years old most are more dangerous and so awkward to use that cycling is not viable.

Motor vehicles have exclusive use of motorways, but aren’t obliged to over other roads.

Competent drivers can easily deal safely with the average group of cyclists with virtually no delay, caravans are worse, at least you can see round cyclists.

This ^^

Plus, they are invariably broken at regular intervals by driveways, side roads and access roads, all of which present an opportunity to be T boned.

They are also home to feral teenagers, wobbly kids and dog st.

[mikecassie]

Don Roque said:

Cyclists riding two abreast are still easy to overtake. It's nice when they get the point and move to single file to facilitate passing, but it's not necessary. Once you get a safe spot, floor it and leave them in the dust.

This all day long. Riding two abreast is better so cyclists can chat, which isn't so easy when riding in a line. Cycling can be social too. There's knobs on bikes, knobs in any brand of car, the issue we have is the knobs we come across in daily life are then used to generalise a whole group of people...

I vote to keep the 2 abreast rule and enlighten drivers why it can be better for them and cyclists should also be informed that it is ok to pull in now and then if it's safe to let other road users past. Yes, I do do that if I can do it without endangering myself.

But really, everyone needs to get a sense of perspective, cyclists losing 20 secs to let a car or two past is nothing and a car being delayed 20 secs behind a cyclist is nothing. Get off FB earlier and leave the house earlier...

[Gweeds]

amgmcqueen said:

Sick of arrogant, scumbag cyclists not moving over to let cars overtake.

Bane of Britain.

Learn how to drive then, you absolute melt.

[NewUsername]

Falconer said:

their safety seems to be entirely the responsibility of car drivers how ever bad their riding is,

Yep

This goes for any vulnerable road user and rightly so. We should care about fellow humans yeah?

[jakesmith]

Rozzers said:

Falconer said:

Change the topic slightly, what about cyclists who refuse to use the cycle track provided and use the road instead ,holding up the traffic?
I know they don’t have to legally, which in my view is wrong especially as their safety seems to be entirely the responsibility of car drivers how ever bad their riding is, but the Highway Code does say you should show consideration to other road users.
The road in question is a busy but narrow A road , you would think anyone with half a brain would rather cycle separated by 4 foot of grass verge than a few inches of fresh(ish) air.

If you are in the UK, they are largely useless, unswept, beset by runners wearing headphones, dogs on 20ft leads and then you have to cross the main carriageway at every junction, so if you are over 12 years old most are more dangerous and so awkward to use that cycling is not viable.

Motor vehicles have exclusive use of motorways, but aren’t obliged to over other roads.

Competent drivers can easily deal safely with the average group of cyclists with virtually no delay, caravans are worse, at least you can see round cyclists.

That cycle lane leading to the Mortlake entrance to Richmond Park is about 2 miles long and has hardly any junctions. Separate to the road, it is barely used by cyclists who swarm in large groups like the parasites they are, and there is often too much oncoming traffic to pass them. It is frustrating! But I’m not the bloke in the Landrover who lost his st with one in that viral clip

[kambites]

If a cycle lane isn't used by cyclists it will be because it'd not realistically usable for some reason. No cyclist is going to choose to share the road with incompetent, selfish car drivers who think it's beneath them to wait a few moments to pass another road user.

I'm not sure I've ever seen a really good cycle lane in the UK, I'm guessing they're almost invariably designed by people who don't actually cycle.

Maybe the best solution is to ban cars from cities and give all the roads over to cyclists.

Edited by kambites on Wednesday 28th October 09:41

[DoubleD]

Cycle lanes need to be of a good standard before they will be used. Once they are then yes their use should be compulsory

[Ares]

cerb4.5lee said:

Ares said:

Fady said:

DoubleD said:

cerb4.5lee said:

A good point to be fair! I'm 47, and I do feel it occasionally in my knees if I'm honest.

Cycle off road, best of all as it keeps you away from traffic and its way more fun than road cycling.

That's like saying drive/race your car on a track. It's horses for courses.

I way prefer road cycling. Gravel riding is fun, MTB soon loses my interest. Maybe when I'm old I'll get it more

As much as I loved the risk/fear/adrenaline of off roading on my MTB years ago, I actually always preferred being on my road bike on the road. The speed and the rush of riding fast always excited me.

Whereas now I wouldn't want to ride on the road, because I see the terrible standards from cars on the road. So if I used a road bike on the road now I'd be in constant fear of some numpty knocking me off it. I had much less fear to that sort of thing when I was younger to be fair.

Road cycling is fine if you pick your roads. I avoid busy roads, and will often do 100km+ and only see a handful of cars.

[Ares]

stugolf said:

Riding 2 a breast wouldn't be so much of an issue if most of them were riding instead of doing 6 miles an hour chatting away without a care in the world, its inconsiderate and they don't have to do it do they?

6mph?

[Ares]

DoubleD said:

Cycle lanes need to be of a good standard before they will be used. Once they are then yes their use should be compulsory

I know of one within 20/30 miles of me, runs up the side of the Alderley Edge by-pass. I'll use that rather than be on the road, as do the vast majority of cyclists. Its not perfect, it's only about 1.5m wide and is multi-use so you have to cope with headphone-wearing runners & walkers, plus of course phone-zombies, as well as families with small kids pootling along on their bikes not much over walking speed.

Take a look at the Lakefront Trail in Chicago if you want to see how a true cycle/running track would be effective.....or indeed the dozens of miles of cycle tracks running alongside roads the leads to it. And that's Trump's America!!!

[jakesmith]

Ares said:

Road cycling is fine if you pick your roads. I avoid busy roads, and will often do 100km+ and only see a handful of cars.

fk me that’s fast!! Do u wear knee pads and stuff? You must be v fit

[nickfrog]

jakesmith said:

it is barely used by cyclists who swarm in large groups like the parasites they are

[andylaight]

100? I managed 106KPH descending from Croix de Feu once

[smn159]

amgmcqueen said:

Sick of arrogant, scumbag cyclists not moving over to let cars overtake.

Bane of Britain.

Jesus wept, there's some absolute tools on this site

[J4CKO]

DoubleD said:

Cycle lanes need to be of a good standard before they will be used. Once they are then yes their use should be compulsory

There are some good ones near where I live, when roads are built now they are including decent paths for cyclists and walkers, my dad is 73 and is doing sixty plus miles a week and rarely ventures onto the road.

There are however some absolutely terrible ones which just arent conducive to being used by anyone cycling at pace, imagine it as driver as taking narrow singletrack country lanes full of tractors, cow poo and horse lorries at 25 mph as opposed to an A road at 60, thats what its like on a road bike when you have to stop to cross roads, dodge pedestrians, dogs and other hazards, it reduces your ride down to just above walking pace which makes it largely pointless.

So, no use of a cycle path shouldn't be compulsory, it should be a compelling alternative. Some are good as they are perfect for cyclng, others as the alternative is death on a stick, fast A roads you can technically cycle on but would need to be mental, the bit through the tunnels under the runways at Manchester airport for example. The path is a bit grotty and the tunnels seem to be used for the less talented Banksys of the world who leave glass and cans everywhere but its better than going through the actual tunnel but I do see the odd cyclist go through, same with the A34 bypass, you can, but why you would, no idea

If you look on Google earth/map etc, there are loads of roads cyclists favor, Cheshire is mile upon mile of country roads with very little traffic, those are the real cyclepaths to me, can go miles without seeing more than the odd car or tractor, much safer and more pleasant than using the route you would use in a car.

You build a sort of mental map and grade roads into these categories,

Off Road Completely
Nice cyclepath, eg Alongside A34 Alderley Edge bypass
Largely Unused country roads
B roads that arent that busy
Town centres
A roads that arent that terrifying
fk that, no chance

I will take a longer route rather than go on certain roads

[Fady]

Ares said:

DoubleD said:

Cycle lanes need to be of a good standard before they will be used. Once they are then yes their use should be compulsory

I know of one within 20/30 miles of me, runs up the side of the Alderley Edge by-pass. I'll use that rather than be on the road, as do the vast majority of cyclists. Its not perfect, it's only about 1.5m wide and is multi-use so you have to cope with headphone-wearing runners & walkers, plus of course phone-zombies, as well as families with small kids pootling along on their bikes not much over walking speed.

Take a look at the Lakefront Trail in Chicago if you want to see how a true cycle/running track would be effective.....or indeed the dozens of miles of cycle tracks running alongside roads the leads to it. And that's Trump's America!!!

A bit more land to play with there and some!

[will_]

jakesmith said:

That cycle lane leading to the Mortlake entrance to Richmond Park is about 2 miles long and has hardly any junctions. Separate to the road, it is barely used by cyclists who swarm in large groups like the parasites they are, and there is often too much oncoming traffic to pass them. It is frustrating! But I’m not the bloke in the Landrover who lost his st with one in that viral clip

If you mean Priory Lane, then I'm afraid you are wrong on every count.

And it's a 20mph road - realistically most of the cyclists heading to the park won't be doing much less than that.

And "parasites"....nice.

[will_]

DoubleD said:

Cycle lanes need to be of a good standard before they will be used. Once they are then yes their use should be compulsory

If they are of a good standard they wouldn't need to be compulsory.