Highway code

markcdo

Greetings

Yup, I'm new to this roadie lark, been mtb'ing for ever and just started going out with a mate on the road.

can someone please confirm or deny that you can ride 2 abreast on the road quite legally, this will enable me to rant and rave justifiably at the assorted car driving cretins who beep and hurl abuse at me/us when we hold them up for 30 seconds.

this is usually accompanied by some ridiculously dangerous " get as close as you can to the cyclist" driving tactics

I'm sure you know what I mean !!!!

thanks

Mark

anto164

It's recommended in the highway code that cyclists ride no more than 2 abreast, but on narrow roads, cyclists should ride in single file.

These are however, only guidelines (The key word is should).

http://www.direct.gov.uk/en/TravelAndTr ... /DG_069837

point 66.

Weejie54

The Highway Code doesn't make things legal or illegal, but in cases where the behaviour of a road user is in doubt, it can be cited as a guide to 'proper behaviour' - particularly consideration for other road users:

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://ukhighwaycode.com/aboutus.aspx

sub55

yeah, no more than 2 abreast is advised.
but you are entitled to as much room as you feel you need. just in the same manner as a
car driver. so you need to keep to the left hand side of the road , unless you are overtaking. you must`nt cross a constant white line.
so legally ,you can ride as a many abreast as you like . you are perfectly entitled to be there.
as for pulling in to ride single file when theres cars around , make them wait.
last time i was out on a club run ,probably 20 riders , so it makes no difference . if theres
7 rows of 3 , or 20 in one line , cars are`nt going past anyway.

Mister W

Bear in mind that what is legal may not be what is safe. Today I drove past a small group riding two abreast along a fast, busy, winding dual carriageway. Cars were having to take last minute evasive action to get round them because of the limited visibility on the twisty road. It would have been safer for the cyclists to ride in single file.

top_bhoy

Mister W wrote:

Bear in mind that what is legal may not be what is safe. Today I drove past a small group riding two abreast along a fast, busy, winding dual carriageway. Cars were having to take last minute evasive action to get round them because of the limited visibility on the twisty road. It would have been safer for the cyclists to ride in single file.

In this case, the cars are going to fast and should be slowing down for the road conditions. However I take your point, there is a difference between safe practice and being legally correct and a need for cyclists to be aware that the two aren't necessarily the same.

Sirius631

Mister W wrote:

Bear in mind that what is legal may not be what is safe. Today I drove past a small group riding two abreast along a fast, busy, winding dual carriageway. Cars were having to take last minute evasive action to get round them because of the limited visibility on the twisty road. It would have been safer for the cyclists to ride in single file.

Sounds like the drivers should have been driving slower because they were being taken by surprise. As the saying goes, 'be able to stop in a distance that you can see to be clear'.

By riding in single file the group would have doubled the distance that it would have taken to overtake them, thus reducing the road capacity and hence adding to the potential congestion. When riding too far to the left of the lane you encourage drivers to squeeze past in the same lane, thus increasing the danger to you. The default position that should be adopted by a rider is what they call the primary position, and is the middle of the traffic lane that they are riding in. That is not to say that they shouldn't move over when they feel safe to do so, but there is no reason to do so on a dual carriageway. With a rider in primary there is space to fit another rider in the secondary position, 1m from the curb, so you might aswell do so.

If a driver overtakes another car they have to use the second lane. As they are called upon to give cyclists as much room as a car when overtaking they should use the second lane when overtaking cyclists aswell.

When riding in single file agroup of riders shroud each other from the view of drivers approaching from behind. By riding two abreast the group will double the chance of being seen.

themightyw

As a passionate cyclist I am, as you'd expect, in favour of drivers giving cyclists at much space as possible and being as careful as possible around them.

However the arrogance and stubbornness of some cyclists on this issue just makes me embarassed.

Yes, you're entitled to ride 2 abreast etc and I do frequently, but I also show courtesy to other road users and pull in when I see someone's been waiting and thank them for their patience. I know there are some cyclists who seem to take a perverse pleasure in holding up cars, and in my view that does nothing whatsoever to improve people's attitudes to cyclists.

Some of the most terrifying moments I've ever had on a bike have been caused by stubborn riders in a group who refused to go single file when traffic was backed up behind. It leads to drivers starting an overtaking manouever at the back of a line of single file cyclists (perfectly sensibly) then encountering a group of stubborn riders who refused to fall back into single file despite the business of the road. That usually ends up with the car having to pull back in in a panic into the path of riders behind, and it can be extremely dangerous.

Yes, if you care only about legality rather than common sense or actual safety, you can do what the hell you like. So can tractors that have a top speed of 15 mph, but I'd still think they were driving irresponsibly and unintelligently if they didn't pull aside or take courteous action to allow the line of frustrated drivers behind them to pass. You can cling on to your copy of the highway code as you lie in the intensive care unit if you want, but I'd rather stay safe.

In my view? Be courteous and be mindful of the impact of your actions on the safety of others if your riding in a large group. Hold your line, don't be bullied by drivers, but don't bullheadedly make the roads an unpleasant place to be either. That doesn't help anyone.

-liam-

themightyw wrote:

As a passionate cyclist I am, as you'd expect, in favour of drivers giving cyclists at much space as possible and being as careful as possible around them.

However the arrogance and stubbornness of some cyclists on this issue just makes me embarassed.

Yes, you're entitled to ride 2 abreast etc and I do frequently, but I also show courtesy to other road users and pull in when I see someone's been waiting and thank them for their patience. I know there are some cyclists who seem to take a perverse pleasure in holding up cars, and in my view that does nothing whatsoever to improve people's attitudes to cyclists.

Some of the most terrifying moments I've ever had on a bike have been caused by stubborn riders in a group who refused to go single file when traffic was backed up behind. It leads to drivers starting an overtaking manouever at the back of a line of single file cyclists (perfectly sensibly) then encountering a group of stubborn riders who refused to fall back into single file despite the business of the road. That usually ends up with the car having to pull back in in a panic into the path of riders behind, and it can be extremely dangerous.

Yes, if you care only about legality rather than common sense or actual safety, you can do what the hell you like. So can tractors that have a top speed of 15 mph, but I'd still think they were driving irresponsibly and unintelligently if they didn't pull aside or take courteous action to allow the line of frustrated drivers behind them to pass. You can cling on to your copy of the highway code as you lie in the intensive care unit if you want, but I'd rather stay safe.

In my view? Be courteous and be mindful of the impact of your actions on the safety of others if your riding in a large group. Hold your line, don't be bullied by drivers, but don't bullheadedly make the roads an unpleasant place to be either. That doesn't help anyone.

+1

Some of the attitudes displayed here are frankly pathetic and if actually practised in real life on the road are putting lives in danger. You can bet your bottom dollar that if you force someone driving a car into waiting by being aggressive in your reluctance to play ball to a certain point with other road users, the car driver will eventually lose patience and perhaps take a risk....why, because, possibly, the cyclist sometimes has a chip on their shoulder.

Pross

themightyw wrote:

As a passionate cyclist I am, as you'd expect, in favour of drivers giving cyclists at much space as possible and being as careful as possible around them.

However the arrogance and stubbornness of some cyclists on this issue just makes me embarassed.

Yes, you're entitled to ride 2 abreast etc and I do frequently, but I also show courtesy to other road users and pull in when I see someone's been waiting and thank them for their patience. I know there are some cyclists who seem to take a perverse pleasure in holding up cars, and in my view that does nothing whatsoever to improve people's attitudes to cyclists.

Some of the most terrifying moments I've ever had on a bike have been caused by stubborn riders in a group who refused to go single file when traffic was backed up behind. It leads to drivers starting an overtaking manouever at the back of a line of single file cyclists (perfectly sensibly) then encountering a group of stubborn riders who refused to fall back into single file despite the business of the road. That usually ends up with the car having to pull back in in a panic into the path of riders behind, and it can be extremely dangerous.

Yes, if you care only about legality rather than common sense or actual safety, you can do what the hell you like. So can tractors that have a top speed of 15 mph, but I'd still think they were driving irresponsibly and unintelligently if they didn't pull aside or take courteous action to allow the line of frustrated drivers behind them to pass. You can cling on to your copy of the highway code as you lie in the intensive care unit if you want, but I'd rather stay safe.

In my view? Be courteous and be mindful of the impact of your actions on the safety of others if your riding in a large group. Hold your line, don't be bullied by drivers, but don't bullheadedly make the roads an unpleasant place to be either. That doesn't help anyone.

+2 take the space needed to ride safely but also ride responsibly and don't aim to cause friction. When on a club run we will ride two abreast and single out if it helps people to pass safely. Some lanes are too narrow for a car to pass a single rider safely in which case they need to wait for a safe stretch to pass or somewhere where we can pull in but if you are driving roads like that you aren't likely to be in a rush.

Also, as stated the Highway Code is a Code of Conduct and has no legal standing per se. However, it can be used as a guide as to what is deemed acceptable driving standards in a prosecution for dangerous driving etc. and, I would guess, would be used by the opposition if you ended up in court either sueing or defending in a civil case if, for example, you were knocked down riding three abreast.

sub55

MMMM, my itial post might may come across as being agressive.
was`nt ment to sound like that, but i do think riders need to know what they are allowed to do or not.
when you feel the need to fight for your bit of road , fight for it.
whilst i`m riding , i will be as courteous as i can . but if i feel the need to ride in the middle of my lane , i will and if i feel the need to lash out at a car , i will.
lets face it , if its nearer enough to hit on the roof with my fist ,its to near and i honestly think that being dominant on the road ,keeps me safe. lets face it , i can ride up to 10,000 miles a year and have done for 20 years, been knocked off , never.

Dess1e

Buy a copy of Cyclecraft, also published by HMSO as is the Highway code. Some of the advice is contradictory to the later, but far more relevant to staying alive on a bike.

bompington

Weejie54 wrote:

The Highway Code doesn't make things legal or illegal

Isn't this a bit of a red old chestnut herring? Surely it's as good as law to all intents and purposes?

rick_chasey

Use your common sense.

You can feel when it's OK to do 2 abreast, and when it isn't.

Weejie54

Isn't this a bit of a red old chestnut herring? Surely it's as good as law to all intents and purposes?

Perhaps if you read the whole paragraph, you would grasp the statement in context.

Weejie54 wrote:

The Highway Code doesn't make things legal or illegal, but in cases where the behaviour of a road user is in doubt, it can be cited as a guide to 'proper behaviour' - particularly consideration for other road users:

So, in cases of reckless driving or driving without care and attention, a break of the Highway Code could be cited as evidence of that recklessness or poor attention. Conversely, if someone caused an accident without necessarily contravening the Highway Code, it doesn't mean they were driving perfectly. However, someone cannot be prosecuted for merely breaking a rule of the Highway Code.
So, for all intents and purposes, the Highway Code does not make something legal or illegal. Riding two abreast is a fine example of this.
The herring is not even pink. :roll:

Pross

bompington wrote:

show previous quotes

Weejie54 wrote:

The Highway Code doesn't make things legal or illegal

Isn't this a bit of a red old chestnut herring? Surely it's as good as law to all intents and purposes?

Not really, it does include some things that are law in simplified terms and as I said above it can be used as a benchmark as to what would be deemed the standard of a competent driver is cases of careless or dangerous driving but I doubt you would be succesfully prosecuted for riding 3 abreast unless you were deemed to be obstructing the highway. If this were the case then every road race would provide for potential prosecution. The key in reading the Highway Code is if the term used is should or must, must means that there is legislation covering it (e.g. the rules for cyclists say you SHOULD wear a helmet but that you MUST use lights at nights although this is plainly wrong as you don't need lights at 9.00pm at night in midsummer!) the relevant legislation is then highlighted at the end of the clause. In addition the Highway Code could be used in Civil cases I suspect.

dUNC

themightyw wrote:

<snip>

This. One of the best posts I've seen on this subject. If all road users (cyclists, car drivers, HGV drivers, lorries, caravans, etc) showed a bit more respect and common sense in their behaviour rather than a need to assert their "rights" then the road would be a much safer place. Not that I think this is unique to road usage, it seems to me to underpin many of society's ills.

pilot_pete

Pross wrote:

you MUST use lights at nights although this is plainly wrong as you don't need lights at 9.00pm at night in midsummer!) the relevant legislation is then highlighted at the end of the clause.

NIGHT. That space of time during which the sun is below the horizon of the earth, except, that short space which precedes its rising and follows its setting, during which, by its light, the countenance of a man may be discerned. I Hale, P. C. 550; 3 Inst. 63; 4 Bl. Com. 224; 1 Hawk. P. C. 101; 3 Chit. Cr. Law, 1093; 2 Leach, 710; Bac. Ab. Burglary, D; 2 East, P. C. 509; 2 Russ. Cr. 32; Rosc. Cr. Ev. 278; 7 Dane's Ab. 134.

So there is no legal need to use a light at 9pm on a midsummer's evening if the sun is above the horizon (which you are implying it is). Therefore, the Highway Code is not 'plainly wrong'. I work in aviation where we take 30 minutes after sunset as being the start of 'official' night and 30 minutes before sunrise as the start of 'official' day. This is the time when it is dark(er) but not actually dark (the bit they refer to when you can see the discernable shape of a man)! Hope this helps.

PP

p.s. I put my lights on as soon as it starts to get remotely dark, or even just dim, as it is better to be seen and avoided rather than have your next of kin fight a court case over this legal point some time after your funeral.....

fnegroni

Pilot Pete wrote:

p.s. I put my lights on as soon as it starts to get remotely dark, or even just dim, as it is better to be seen and avoided rather than have your next of kin fight a court case over this legal point some time after your funeral.....

Indeed, my rear light was on this morning at 10AM since it was dim and starting to drizzle, making visibility an issue on country roads with trees on the sides.
My front light was also on while going through sections with junctions, to ensure drivers could see me.

Sirius631

There used to be legal lighting up times starting 30mins after sunset and ending 30mins before sunrise. You can google web sites for times of sunrise and sunset calculated for you locality.

Pross

Pilot Pete wrote:

show previous quotes

Pross wrote:

you MUST use lights at nights although this is plainly wrong as you don't need lights at 9.00pm at night in midsummer!) the relevant legislation is then highlighted at the end of the clause.

NIGHT. That space of time during which the sun is below the horizon of the earth, except, that short space which precedes its rising and follows its setting, during which, by its light, the countenance of a man may be discerned. I Hale, P. C. 550; 3 Inst. 63; 4 Bl. Com. 224; 1 Hawk. P. C. 101; 3 Chit. Cr. Law, 1093; 2 Leach, 710; Bac. Ab. Burglary, D; 2 East, P. C. 509; 2 Russ. Cr. 32; Rosc. Cr. Ev. 278; 7 Dane's Ab. 134.

So there is no legal need to use a light at 9pm on a midsummer's evening if the sun is above the horizon (which you are implying it is). Therefore, the Highway Code is not 'plainly wrong'. I work in aviation where we take 30 minutes after sunset as being the start of 'official' night and 30 minutes before sunrise as the start of 'official' day. This is the time when it is dark(er) but not actually dark (the bit they refer to when you can see the discernable shape of a man)! Hope this helps.

PP

p.s. I put my lights on as soon as it starts to get remotely dark, or even just dim, as it is better to be seen and avoided rather than have your next of kin fight a court case over this legal point some time after your funeral.....

There's no definition of night within the Road Vehicle Lighting Regulations to which this applies though, the regs use the terms sunrise and sunset as these are definitive times. Night can be subjective and if you ask the man in the street if 9pm is night they would probably say yes even if it is before sunset whereas if you ask them if 4.30pm is night they are more than likely to say no even though it may be dark by then in mid December. I'm not suggesting pushing definitions to prove a point (I use lights when it's gloomy or even on clear days if riding on some busy roads) but I was trying to demonstrate an example of why the Highway Code isn't a legal document, using terms like night would leave it open to potential loopholes. Incidently the regs stipulate no lights or reflector are required on a pedal cycle before sunset or after sunrise.

blackpoolkev

+3 to themightyw post previously.I ride a lot of narrow country lanes and feel bad when holding up traffic so would pull over when safe to do so.As a result I often receive cheery waves or honks of thanks.It feels much better than the annoyance associated with being stubborn about your roadspace.When push comes to shove, cars shove harder.

markcdo

Thanks all, some sound advice there.

I'm usually of the common sense, pull over/single file when appropriate variety but after being called "wanker" a few times (on a ride on a large/wide two lane road with loads of safe overtaking opportunity,) the other day for being 2 abreast my "you can f***ing wait" head came on.

Why are people so impatient, or is it just the really posh/important people of Saffron Walden and the surrounding villages who seem to think their heads will explode if they don't arrive immediately, now, this instant, get out of the way.........

you get the picture.

thanks anyway.

plowmar

The terminology re lights usage gives the difference between legal and advisory parts of the Highway Code.

Where a section starts or includes must then it is a legal requirement but where the word may is used it is merely advisory.

Notwithstanding that (oooo posh) being in the right on a hospital bed doesn't help.