Is this the norm for a club run?
Comments
-
Aside: Its interesting from a social psychology point of view that the general tenor of the argument is "my country right or wrong".
(that said my country would be a lot better place if we could ship all the triathletes/testers/roadies/men with beards (delete as applicable) to another place.)Martin S. Newbury RC0 -
A good example of Fat bloke in Astana kit paying £40 to ride on public roads™
But not nearly fat enough, stop riding your bike for a year then take another pic.0 -
redddraggon wrote:bahzob wrote:I am also honest enough to admit that we cyclists are in an especially privileged position as not only do we get to use the roads free of charge
WTF?
You don't pay taxes then?
Yes. I also drive a car. Do the maths. The net income from taxes on motorists dwarfs the amounts spent on roads.
Its a bit like smokers, you can moan about the problems they cause but if by some miracle everybody who smoked/drove a car gave up both as a new years resolution the current hole in the budget would go a very dark shade of black.
Failure to recognise and accept this is example of blinkered view I'm having a go at.Martin S. Newbury RC0 -
The club I'm a member of often has 15+ riders on a Sunday. We try and maintain 2 abreast most of the time. When road conditions dictate we single up to allow traffic to pass but occassionally it is difficult to maintain this road position.
Regularly we have people trying to overtake and pull in in the middle of our group. WE have had people do this whilst overtaking on road around Ladybower which is populated with traffic islands to discourage this.
The big problems come from the "get off the road I pay road tax" and "you should be in single file on the road" groups of idiots."
If drivers drove as if they're kids were our cycling and cyclist keep an awareness then we can all survive0 -
bahzob wrote:redddraggon wrote:bahzob wrote:I am also honest enough to admit that we cyclists are in an especially privileged position as not only do we get to use the roads free of charge
WTF?
You don't pay taxes then?
Yes. I also drive a car. Do the maths. The net income from taxes on motorists dwarfs the amounts spent on roads.
Its a bit like smokers, you can moan about the problems they cause but if by some miracle everybody who smoked/drove a car gave up both as a new years resolution the current hole in the budget would go a very dark shade of black.
Failure to recognise and accept this is example of blinkered view I'm having a go at.
We could save several billion pounds each year that the NHS spends on treating type 2 diabetes related conditions if all the obese porkers rode a bike instead of driving. Would that help?More problems but still living....0 -
amaferanga wrote:
We could save several billion pounds each year that the NHS spends on treating type 2 diabetes related conditions if all the obese porkers rode a bike instead of driving. Would that help?
Thanks for making my point about the closed mind mentality of "my country right or wrong" so well.
Of course your argument might hold just a quantum of validity if you never saw an obese porker on a bike. Clearly you need to get out more.Martin S. Newbury RC0 -
redddraggon wrote:bahzob wrote:I am also honest enough to admit that we cyclists are in an especially privileged position as not only do we get to use the roads free of charge
WTF?
You don't pay taxes then?
I don't get your point. Of course we all pay taxes but do we pay taxes to ride bikes?
To me that is a privileged position, if you want to argue differently then fine I'm open to the arguments but you put that argument to car driving friends and see how far you get.0 -
magicrhodes wrote:The club I'm a member of often has 15+ riders on a Sunday. We try and maintain 2 abreast most of the time. When road conditions dictate we single up to allow traffic to pass but occassionally it is difficult to maintain this road position.
....
The big problems come from the "get off the road I pay road tax" and "you should be in single file on the road" groups of idiots."
If drivers drove as if they're kids were our cycling and cyclist keep an awareness then we can all survive
I certainly agree with your last comment. However wrt to previous if its my kids on the road I would always have them in single file, not two abreast.
Its nice from a social pov to ride 2 abreast but I am not sure of what the justification for this formation from a safety or consideration of other road users perspective. The more so if the riders attempting it have (as seems to be case in OP) less bike handling/road sense than the average child,
I'm quite new to cycling (only been doing it 4 years, previously was an obese porker as above, so hopefully made at least someone on this thread happy by doing my bit to save billions). Happy to admit I'm wrong if someone can explain to me how riding 2 abreast is safer than single file.Martin S. Newbury RC0 -
-
magicrhodes wrote:The club I'm a member of often has 15+ riders on a Sunday. We try and maintain 2 abreast most of the time. When road conditions dictate we single up to allow traffic to pass but occassionally it is difficult to maintain this road position.
Regularly we have people trying to overtake and pull in in the middle of our group. WE have had people do this whilst overtaking on road around Ladybower which is populated with traffic islands to discourage this.
The big problems come from the "get off the road I pay road tax" and "you should be in single file on the road" groups of idiots."
If drivers drove as if they're kids were our cycling and cyclist keep an awareness then we can all survive
I don't know, 15 riders riding two abreast or in a row, is that really acceptable/fair on other road users?
I'm not trying to be argumentative here. I know we have the 'right' to ride like this, I know it's enjoyable to ride like this, but does it do us any good, is it fair on other road users?
I'm playing a bit of devils advocate here so go easy on ME.0 -
bahzob wrote:
Yes. I also drive a car. Do the maths. The net income from taxes on motorists dwarfs the amounts spent on roads.
Its a bit like smokers, you can moan about the problems they cause but if by some miracle everybody who smoked/drove a car gave up both as a new years resolution the current hole in the budget would go a very dark shade of black.
Failure to recognise and accept this is example of blinkered view I'm having a go at.
The fact you own a car as well as your bike doesn't exactly put you into a special category though does it. I would have though 80 - 90% of the people in my club own a car as well, so very cyclists ride the road for "free" even by your definition (which ignores the point that road maintenance is paid for out of the central pot). If we take your approach, maybe we should all just pay for what we use eh? perhaps I can have discount on my income tax for not having any kids so don't need to put money towards schools or maybe a discount for NHS contributions to reflect the private health insurance I get through work... daft isn't it? Just like your inference that as we don't pay (which is wrong) we have lesser rights than motorists. Perhaps, we should consider what vehicles cause most damage to roads, 85Kg of me and bike or Cheshire wife in a f**k off 4x4 on the school run?
The simple fact is, most motorists can't seem to reconcile that if they are "held up" overtaking a bunch of 6 cyclists for 10 seconds, but, having carried out the overtaking manoeuvre, catch up with the next traffic in front of them (i.e another car/lorry/van) on the same road, 99% of the times, there has been no overall delay to the journey by overtaking the cyclists and it is actually the other motor vehicles which delay their journey.
This idea we should be simply kow-towing to motorists and making ourselves as invisible as possible is wrong. Whatever happened to giving consideration to each other and that means motorists to other road users not just the other way round.
As for racing on the roads, again I'm not going to be grovellingly grateful for that. I'd rather subscribe to letting people get on with what they want to (within the law) although not a fan, I wouldn't try to stop green laners who rip up tracks, or horse riders from going on the road. The concenpt that motoroists have some higher authority or superiority over other road users is what has got us into the position we're in. The idea that all sorts of other people should clear the roads so that everyone driving a car can get to Tescos 30 seconds quicker on a Sunday is frankly b******ks.
I'm with other posters, I have no issue with riding 2 a breast on the road and will, if riding at the back of a club bunch, tend to take a slightly wider line if on the outside so motorists coming up behind are not fooled into trying to squeeze past and then getting caught up with on-coming traffic half way along a line of 12-20 riders (as I've seen happen with impatient drivers). Instead they have to think and give proper and due consideration to the road users ahead of them whom they have an obligation to pass safely.
The Astana kit is still wrong though Pokerface, you're Macc Wheelers kit is better
and as Pokerface will probably also experience, most fat blokes on 5k bikes around here are usually fair weather "training" for a sprint triathlon and think the shiny new Cervelo will help them bring their time down more than 2 stone off the gut will.... triathlon... the new golf for accountants, bankers and lawyers
0 -
redddraggon wrote:Well I had to pay tax on the components and clothing and I have to pay tax on the "fuel" needed to ride my bike.
And bikes are low Co2 emitters so do not require VED, just like some low emission cars.
ROFL. Love to see your sums on this.
How much tax exactly do you pay on your bike components?
And how much on your "fuel"? (Foods zero vat unless you do all your eating at restaurants;)
And how many inches of road would that buy?
Not sure it would even be enough for you to park your turbo on and you'd need that because if everyone thought like you there would be no roads for us to play on at all.
And the operative word is play, because at the end of the day that's what we're doing. Moan and groan about HGVs and white van man all you like but at the end of the day truth is.....they've got more justification to be on the road than joe cyclist not just because they paid for them but because they have to be. For us its just fun (mostly)Martin S. Newbury RC0 -
bahzob wrote:Cyclists have an obligation to ride safely and that includes making overtaking as straight forward and easy as possible for vehicles.
Show me where in any piece of roads legislation there is any obligation on any road user to behave in this way.
The obligation is clearly entirely on the driver of the overtaking vehicle to make sure their manoeuvre is safe. How could it possibly be otherwise?
Since you seem to need a refresher on overtaking, go here:
http://www.direct.gov.uk/en/TravelAndTr ... /DG_070314
and take a look at the way the Highway Code recommends overtaking a solo cyclist. There would be no difference overtaking a group.
And if you find all this too hard to take, do us all a favour and hand in your driving licence for disposal.John Stevenson0 -
bahzob wrote:redddraggon wrote:Well I had to pay tax on the components and clothing and I have to pay tax on the "fuel" needed to ride my bike.
And bikes are low Co2 emitters so do not require VED, just like some low emission cars.
ROFL. Love to see your sums on this.
How much tax exactly do you pay on your bike components?
And how much on your "fuel"? (Foods zero vat unless you do all your eating at restaurants;)
And how many inches of road would that buy?
Not sure it would even be enough for you to park your turbo on and you'd need that because if everyone thought like you there would be no roads for us to play on at all.
And the operative word is play, because at the end of the day that's what we're doing. Moan and groan about HGVs and white van man all you like but at the end of the day truth is.....they've got more justification to be on the road than joe cyclist not just because they paid for them but because they have to be. For us its just fun (mostly)
You also forget Council Tax which is what actually pays for roads.0 -
bahzob wrote:
And the operative word is play, because at the end of the day that's what we're doing. Moan and groan about HGVs and white van man all you like but at the end of the day truth is.....they've got more justification to be on the road than joe cyclist not just because they paid for them but because they have to be. For us its just fun (mostly)
Speak for yourself. Most of my journeys by bike are commuting.
Anyway, that's irrelevant. Roads are funded from central revenue for people to use as they see fit (within the framework of rules that mitigates the carnage that'd ensue if motorised vehicle use were a complete free-for-all).
You don't get extra rights if your use of the roads is for business purposes. In fact, there are extra restrictions on some business users because the profit motive might cause them to do silly things - I'm thinking of lorry drivers doing excessive hours for example.
And similarly, we're not the only ones using the highways for recreation. Runners jog along the pavements, and some people drive and ride motos for fun too.
The way the law is framed, non-motorised use of the highway is a right - motorised use is a privilege, which can be removed if you abuse it, and which you have to earn by demonstrating your competence.
Your belief that motorised road users have primary rights is exactly opposite to the truth.John Stevenson0 -
bahzob wrote:The last revision of the Highway Code gave serious consideration to saying that cyclists should use cycle paths if available. We know this is plain daft but looking at the original picture I would find it hard to say no to the question "if a cycle path was available should these cyclists be on it for their and other road users safety?"
How would those writing in support of these riders answer that question?
I've had my fair share of abuse from motorists as well. However I'm honest enough to acknowledge that while most is unwarranted some was justified either by my own behaviour or that of other riders in my group (riding pretty much as OP).
I am also honest enough to admit that we cyclists are in an especially privileged position as not only do we get to use the roads free of charge we are also allowed to race on them in a manner and using equipment where safety is compromised in the pursuit of speed. I think the H&S nannies must either be unaware of this or be secret testers/roadies themselves.
I love doing this and do not want it to be jeopardised by the actions of an ignorant or selfish few. Because if this just degenerates into an "us" vs "them" then we (being just a small minority) will lose.
I honestly can't believe that shite has been written by a cyclist. We are in the same privileged position as pedestrians, public transport users and those driving electric cars or others that produce no CO2 whilst travelling around the roads. I also own 3 cars and drive about 30,000 miles a year so pay as much tax if not more than any other motorist (the majority of which pays for the NHS, education, social welfare etc.). I agree that the "snapshot" in the OP shows a scruffy formation and it probably doesn't help the image of cycling but then riding perfectly legally, two abreast and shoulder to shoulder manages to annoy some drivers and one post on here has also suggested that 15 riders in single file is unfair on other road users! For what it's worth, my club runs tend to be a compact two abreast group but we single out if a car is struggling to pass e.g. long stretch of twisting road or narrow country lane. We give a call of "car up" from the back of the bunch and those at the front will wave them through at the first safe opportunity. We usually get a wave or toot of thanks but (less often) will get the blast of a horn, abuse and "get of the rode" rants but they are probably the same drivers that sit 2 feet off the arse of a car in front in the fast lane of the motorway and feel everyone else is holding them up. No-one seems to abuse the JCB or tractor driver that goes the same speed as a group of cyclists, often for miles, without any effort to move over.0 -
bahzob wrote:
But can you also answer with justification for riding 2 abreast as per OP on road with following traffic.
Why does anyone have to justify something that is not in any way a breach of the road rules?
Since you feel it's Bad, mmkay, it's incumbent on you to demonstrate why. Which you're abjectly failing to do.John Stevenson0 -
chrisw12 wrote:I don't know, 15 riders riding two abreast or in a row, is that really acceptable/fair on other road users?
I'm not trying to be argumentative here. I know we have the 'right' to ride like this, I know it's enjoyable to ride like this, but does it do us any good, is it fair on other road users?
I'm playing a bit of devils advocate here so go easy on ME.
As I said two abreast unless the road conditions necessitate otherwise. It is within the rules, the responsibility comes in singling out to create space when required.
We all have a right to use the road but it is not ours to own. VED gives you no right to use the road it is just a taxation on emissions. We all borrow space on the road and should treat each of the borrowers equally.0 -
bahzob wrote:redddraggon wrote:Well I had to pay tax on the components and clothing and I have to pay tax on the "fuel" needed to ride my bike.
And bikes are low Co2 emitters so do not require VED, just like some low emission cars.
ROFL. Love to see your sums on this.
How much tax exactly do you pay on your bike components?
And how much on your "fuel"? (Foods zero vat unless you do all your eating at restaurants;)
And how many inches of road would that buy?
Not sure it would even be enough for you to park your turbo on and you'd need that because if everyone thought like you there would be no roads for us to play on at all.
And the operative word is play, because at the end of the day that's what we're doing. Moan and groan about HGVs and white van man all you like but at the end of the day truth is.....they've got more justification to be on the road than joe cyclist not just because they paid for them but because they have to be. For us its just fun (mostly)
T***icles! The roads would still be there, because they're funded out of general taxation and council tax. They'd be a lot cheaper, because they could be smaller, they wouldn't need anything like so much policing, or traffic lights, so many emergency services to scrape up the innocent bystanders and try to stitch them back together, or a huge registration and enforcement infrastructure to track down the people responsible for the deaths and injuries and bring them to some sort of justice.
Don't get me wrong, am not a rabid anti-motorist. Only a fool would argue that society would be better off without motor vehicles (although I'd like to think that the day will come when we think up a better system for getting around). But any argument which says cyclists should know their place and get out of motorists way because motorists pay tax and cyclists don't is ludicrous.
No matter how hard I try, I can't see anything wrong with the picture in the OP. Yes, they're a bit untidy, but I can't imagine that they'd be any less easy to overtake safely than a precision peleton riding perfectly two abreast. They're entitled to be there, they're entitled to take up space on the road, and they're entitled to be overtaken safely.....0 -
John Stevenson wrote:bahzob wrote:Cyclists have an obligation to ride safely and that includes making overtaking as straight forward and easy as possible for vehicles.
Show me where in any piece of roads legislation there is any obligation on any road user to behave in this way.
The obligation is clearly entirely on the driver of the overtaking vehicle to make sure their manoeuvre is safe. How could it possibly be otherwise?
Since you seem to need a refresher on overtaking, go here:
http://www.direct.gov.uk/en/TravelAndTr ... /DG_070314
and take a look at the way the Highway Code recommends overtaking a solo cyclist. There would be no difference overtaking a group.
And if you find all this too hard to take, do us all a favour and hand in your driving licence for disposal.
Er your first point, I'm one of those who thinks you dont need a law to tell you how to live every aspect to your life, sometimes common sense will do. The converse of the quote I make is "Cyclists have an obligation to ride dangerously and that includes making overtaking as difficult as possible for vehicles" If you believe that I suggest you are the one who needs to hand your bike in,
And thanks for the link to the Highway Code.
You didn't seem to read the whole section. Suggest you page down to points 168 and 169.
- 168 .. Never obstruct drivers who wish to pass... In this context please answer question I have posed above. What is justification for riding 2 abreast when there is frequent following traffic.
169 Do not hold up a long queue of traffic, especially if you are driving a large or slow-moving vehicle . Check your mirrors frequently, and if necessary, pull in where it is safe and let traffic pass. -
How often, honestly, have groups you have ridden in pulled over to let traffic pass?
Also more generally your link to Highway Code rather makes my point about the risk of selfish and ignorant behaviour of some risking affecting us all.
Because clearly, given this debate and the increased number of cyclists on the road this section needs updating so that advice is given as to how cars should overtake groups of cyclists.
Now how do you think this section might look? Do you really think there would be a picture of cyclists like those in the OP?
And if asked the direct questions
- How should riders in a group ride?
- Should riders in large groups use cycle lanes where available?
How do you think those revising the Highway Code would answer?Martin S. Newbury RC0 -
bahzob wrote:[snip]
I'm quite new to cycling (only been doing it 4 years, previously was an obese porker as above, so hopefully made at least someone on this thread happy by doing my bit to save billions). Happy to admit I'm wrong if someone can explain to me how riding 2 abreast is safer than single file.
Hi bahzob - this discussion seems to have become a little derailled into tax paying, rights and wrongs.
On the original topic, I have explained twice to you how riding 2 abreast is safer than single file - can you go back and read my explanation please?
Cheers, Andy0 -
bahzob wrote:amaferanga wrote:
We could save several billion pounds each year that the NHS spends on treating type 2 diabetes related conditions if all the obese porkers rode a bike instead of driving. Would that help?
Thanks for making my point about the closed mind mentality of "my country right or wrong" so well.
Of course your argument might hold just a quantum of validity if you never saw an obese porker on a bike. Clearly you need to get out more.
WTF is your problem? I didn't insult you so please don't insult me.More problems but still living....0 -
Hi.
Riding single file makes an overtake much harder. 2 abreast halves the length of the train. Twice as safe.
In the eyes of the law: Bicycles ≠ Vehiclesbahzob wrote:169 Do not hold up a long queue of traffic, especially if you are driving a large or slow-moving vehicle . Check your mirrors frequently, and if necessary, pull in where it is safe and let traffic pass.0 -
You didn't seem to read the whole section. Suggest you page down to points 168 and 169.
- 168 .. Never obstruct drivers who wish to pass... In this context please answer question I have posed above. What is justification for riding 2 abreast when there is frequent following traffic.
Is it any less obstructing to have a line of 10 riders in single file on a narrow, twisting road than it is to have a column of 5 riding two abreast? It is often easier to pass the shorter line as you can't pass the single file riders safely with an oncoming vehicle anyway and need a longer gap to pass the longer line.
The Highway Code is a Code of Practice and has no legal weight to it in any case. The only use it would have in a legal argument would be to demonstrate the standard of driving / riding generally accepted as being acceptable when trying to prove that someone has driven dangerously.0 -
A 5 page thread in the Training section and i've not started it?
I'm slipping.
0 -
Team Banana Spokesman wrote:Hi.
Riding single file makes an overtake much harder. 2 abreast halves the length of the train. Twice as safe.
+1. As a driver, I'd much rather overtake this group as a bunch as they are riding in the picture than have to try to slot in and out of them if they were spread out in single file! I do treat cyclists as equal road users, and give plenty of room, so I concede that there are drivers who would find single-file as less of an obstruction and just squeeze past....but I'm not sure I'd spend too much time considering the views of those motorists when deciding how to ride!0 -
andrewgturnbull wrote:Hi there.
I'm sorry, but what the f**k are you complaining about?
That looks like a perfectly normal way for four (i think there's four) rider to ride if the wind is coming from the left.
What's the problem - do you think they were taking up too much road space? It's much safer to use the whole lane and force motorists to overtake correctly using the oncoming lane, rather than just squeeze past - which is what would happen if the riders were hugging the kerb.
The op needs to get out more - on his club run!
Cheers, Andy
You mean this one? Well you may think its safer to ride closer to the middle white line than the kerb but not sure others will. And that would include those writing the Highway Code it would seem as their example shows what I'd suggest is the place most people would think it safest for a rider to ride.
Which position do you ride in when you are out solo?Martin S. Newbury RC0 -
bahzob wrote:Er your first point, I'm one of those who thinks you dont need a law to tell you how to live every aspect to your life, sometimes common sense will do.
Do you actually have any supporting argument for your dislike of two abreast riding then, in terms of either law of thoroughly-reasoned safety? Because, newsflash, "it's just common sense" is not an argument it's a confession of prejudice.bahzob wrote:
And thanks for the link to the Highway Code.
You didn't seem to read the whole section. Suggest you page down to points 168 and 169.
- 168 .. Never obstruct drivers who wish to pass... In this context please answer question I have posed above. What is justification for riding 2 abreast when there is frequent following traffic.
Nice moving of goalposts. My club lines out to allow drivers to pass. But that's not your original point, which was that you thought drivers were justified in abusing your riding group for riding two abreast.bahzob wrote:How often, honestly, have groups you have ridden in pulled over to let traffic pass?
Hmm, let me see, that would be Sunday. Next straw man argument please.bahzob wrote:Also more generally your link to Highway Code rather makes my point about the risk of selfish and ignorant behaviour of some risking affecting us all.
You're absolutely right, the overtaking behaviour of people who believe they have some extra rights on the road is dangerous.
You seem to have this demented notion that if someone chooses to overtake a cyclist or group of cyclists in a dangerous manner then that is the cyclists' fault. That this argument is absurd can easily be demonstrated: if you discussed overtaking a tractor in such terms (wider than a group of cyclists and moving more slowly) you'd be laughed at.bahzob wrote:Because clearly, given this debate and the increased number of cyclists on the road this section needs updating so that advice is given as to how cars should overtake groups of cyclists.
Now how do you think this section might look? Do you really think there would be a picture of cyclists like those in the OP?
And if asked the direct questions
- How should riders in a group ride?
- Should riders in large groups use cycle lanes where available?
How do you think those revising the Highway Code would answer?
The Highway Code was revised in 2007. Nothing has changed significantly since then. We already have the answers to those questions therefore - they are in the HC.John Stevenson0 -
rhext wrote:Team Banana Spokesman wrote:Hi.
Riding single file makes an overtake much harder. 2 abreast halves the length of the train. Twice as safe.
+1. As a driver, I'd much rather overtake this group as a bunch as they are riding in the picture than have to try to slot in and out of them if they were spread out in single file! I do treat cyclists as equal road users, and give plenty of room, so I concede that there are drivers who would find single-file as less of an obstruction and just squeeze past....but I'm not sure I'd spend too much time considering the views of those motorists when deciding how to ride!
Its not quite that simple. It depends on numbers and conditions. I've got some sympathy with the above as I've been in groups that have moved into a single file to try to allow a vehicle to pass but this has only made things a lot more difficult.
Regardless, and this is my main point, cyclists do have an obligation to ride in a manner that makes it easy and straightforward as possible for other road users to overtake them.
If they do not then they will, eventually, be told more directly how and where to ride. And, being a cyclist as well as a motorist, do not want that to happen.
Anyway off to do some Xmas shopping, so I'll call it a day on this now.Martin S. Newbury RC0
