Making it legal to cycle side by side..

spen666

ellieb wrote:

Actually I don't think the 'road tax' thing Is pedantic. Churchilll abolished it specifically so that car drivers would not get a false sense of entitlement above other road users. Calling it 'road tax' is one of the main reasons why drivers think they own the road and act accordingly.

Thank you.

Someone who can see the bigger picture!

beverick

Pokerface wrote:

Pedant alert.

Nah, you's expect a pedant to be correct.

Bob

spen666

beverick wrote:

Pokerface wrote:

Pedant alert.

Nah, you's expect a pedant to be correct.

Bob

so was Road Fund not abolished then?

Pross

It's not actually illegal to cycle more than two abreast. Don't forget the Highway Code is not legislation, it's a Code of Practice and uses the word must rather than should when it refers to actual legislation (should is used in the 'not more than two abreast' situation). I'm not suggesting that we should ride more than two abreast but I never cease to be amazed by the amount of people who think the Highway Code is a law.

In many situations it is safer to ride two abreast (assuming cyclists riding close together and in good order) as if there is insufficient room to pass two cyclist safely there isn't enough to pass one safely. There will obviously be some exceptions where a road is too narrow for a car to pass at all if people ride two abreast but in those situations you would expect a car to be going very slowly! The comparison with two horses side by side isn't the one I would use, I would use the fact that a tractor is wider than two cyclists side by side and often slower moving and yet no-one gives them abuse when they block the whole of a country lane or a lane of a main rural road aften for miles before pulling over (some drivers even thank them when they finally pull across!).

ozzzyosborn206

If riding in a group it is sometimes better riding to a breast as vehicles trying to pass don't then have a huge long line of cyclists to pass. But if riding as a pair constantly change around.

Beat me to it, it is much easier to overtake 2 sets of pairs then waiting for a stretch of road longer enough to overtake 4 riders lined out, however i find the best thing to do when people beep at you or tell you to ride single file is to just wave and say good day, or merry christmas(regardless of the time of year), if you shout and swear at them it is only going to make the driver-rider relationship worse

John Stevenson

Pross wrote:

I never cease to be amazed by the amount of people who think the Highway Code is a law...

... that applies to everyone but them...

bigjim

's not actually illegal to cycle more than two abreast. Don't forget the Highway Code is not legislation, it's a Code of Practice and uses the word must rather than should when it refers to actual legislation (should is used in the 'not more than two abreast' situation). I

Should, as per English dictionary-used to indicate obligation, duty, or correctness, typically when criticizing someone's action.
Is that not the same as must? Or am I being pedantic?

StillGoing

I think it's all been covered even for the pedants. You may ride two abreast and as already posted, far safer and easier for a motorist to pass a pair of riders than a string of riders. For one they'll take more time waiting for the safe opportunity to pass if they're going to have to stick themselves over the opposite side of the carriageway. It also stops my cycling buddy sitting on my back wheel and finishing fresh as a daisy when I'm knackered from being his windbreak.

Pross

bigjim wrote:

's not actually illegal to cycle more than two abreast. Don't forget the Highway Code is not legislation, it's a Code of Practice and uses the word must rather than should when it refers to actual legislation (should is used in the 'not more than two abreast' situation). I

Should, as per English dictionary-used to indicate obligation, duty, or correctness, typically when criticizing someone's action.
Is that not the same as must? Or am I being pedantic?

Not necessarily being pedantic but in Highway Code terms they use MUST when they are quoting something that is actual law and should when it is just their interpretation of best practice (I think it is one of the first explanations in the document).

beverick

spen666 wrote:

beverick wrote:

Pokerface wrote:

Pedant alert.

Nah, you's expect a pedant to be correct.

Bob

so was Road Fund not abolished then?

In your original post you corrected a prior post referring to 'road tax' and not the road fund license specifically.

In any event, the "road fund" was not abolished until something like 1955.

Bob

Pessable

I'd like to re-open this thread if I may, because I'm interested in the orginal premise of whether it's okay/legal/advisable etc. to ride 2 abreast.

As someone pointed out the Highway code says "You should never ride more than two abreast, and ride in single file on narrow or busy roads and when riding round bends".

It seems to me that this senetence is so open to interpretation as to be virtually useless (you could ride a peloton through it in either direction ). At the weekend I often cycle with my wife at a fairly relaxed pace and we like to ride alongside each other and chat as we go. We ride a variety of mainly rural roads, from narrow kerbless lanes to single carriageway A roads.

We get tooted all the time, even on very straight A roads. And often cars will pass within a couple of feet of my right handlebar (to make a point I assume) even when the opposite side of the road is empty (and I'm only halfway across my lane with my wife on the nearside).

Recently an old chap was reversing off his drive on the right side of a reasonably wide village road. He clearly saw us coming but nonetheless reversed out onto our side of the road forcing me to slow and drop in behind my wife. I stopped to debate the point with him as calmly as I could muster and his defence was that the Highway Code says that "cyclists have to ride in single file through villages etc.". Apart from his ignorance of the wording (on which I did enlighten him) it says nothing of his complete lack of respect for another road user that he felt the need to make his point by pulling out on me. Don't get me wrong, there was no danger that he was going to run into me or that I had to brake hard, but this does seem to be a prevalent attitude to cyclists. I'm sure in every other respect this old chap was a perfect gentleman.

Travelling down the narrower lanes I often slow and pull into a passing place to make it easier for cars but rarely get acknowledged on the bike, even though I'll always get a wave, pip or flash doing the same thing in the car.

My rule of thumb for 2 abreast is whether someone can overtake me comfortably without me having to go into single file. Many car drivers seem to believe that I should make way for them so that they can overtake on bends or even when there is traffic on the opposite side of the road and without having to slow down at all.

I'm worried that if there's an accident that my riding 2 abreast will count against me because of the Highway Code, even though I think I do my best to make sure that I'm not obstructing anyone's progress. Has there ever been a civil or criminal case that has hinged on interpretation of this section of the Highway Code?

As someone pointed out earlier in this thread, horses and tractors seem to get more respect than cyclists!

Pessable.

PS Big-up for bus drivers though, the ones on my commute are very considerate/patient and never fail to acknowledge if you make way for them.

d87heaven

I agree muchly with the above. Its not exactly an effort to drive a modern car so why people are too idle to move their eyes 20 degress, move a finger to the indicator stalk and slightly turn a steering wheel I will never know.
As for the 'teaching you a lesson' overtakes, I wonder what these people are like at work or at home. Do they go about teaching people a lesson there too? Judging by some of the poor children my partner has to teach I wouldn't bet against it.

snailracer

Pessable wrote:

... the Highway code says "You should never ride more than two abreast, and ride in single file on narrow or busy roads and when riding round bends"...

IMO, riding single file, with proper positioning to prevent risking overtaking, is probably safer than riding two abreast because it gives cyclists room to dive off to the side in an emergency, for example to avoid oncoming cars that have strayed into your side of the road as they take the “racing line” around bends.

On narrow/busy roads, single file does make it easier for cars to overtake (IF you let them), but then cyclists ARE generally slower than cars – it is logical to help them overtake. The thing to note here is, once again, that proper positioning lets the cyclist decide when it safe for cars to overtake, even when riding single file.

My method on fast, narrow roads (e.g. single-carriageway A-roads) is to “hog” the lane until the car coming up behind me has slowed down and pulled out wide enough – I will then drift towards the nearside to increase clearance as they pass. This also minimises the driver’s frustration, as it appears I have got out of their way as soon as they have come up behind me. On a busy road, all following cars will have slowed by the time they are overtaking me, so fast overtakes are avoided.

Riding more than 2 abreast would make the cyclists wider than just about any vehicle, other road users wouldn’t expect that, and given the width of lanes would probably be less safe.

In summary, IMO the HC guidance on riding 2 abreast doesn’t help cyclists, but doesn’t compromise our safety IF we apply appropriate primary/secondary lane positioning when riding in single file.

tofu21

Frank the tank wrote:

As for road tax I just smuggly say zero carbon emitions=zero road tax. As a car owner I pay road tax anywa, just as I pay a tv license whether I watch BBC or not.

If I was being pedantic cycling does have emissions. How do you think that your food gets to the shop?

Electric car have no emissions at the point of use, but the electricity has to come from somewhere. OK, power stations are a lot more efficient than a car engine but there are still emissions.

Drysuitdiver

tofu21 wrote:

Frank the tank wrote:

As for road tax I just smuggly say zero carbon emitions=zero road tax. As a car owner I pay road tax anywa, just as I pay a tv license whether I watch BBC or not.

If I was being pedantic cycling does have emissions. How do you think that your food gets to the shop?

Electric car have no emissions at the point of use, but the electricity has to come from somewhere. OK, power stations are a lot more efficient than a car engine but there are still emissions.

#
they do have emisions. when we exercise harder we respire more. the laws of physics and chemistry still apply so we emit more CO2.

Ollieda

If you read your copy of the highway code, in the introduction you will see it explained that when concerning a legal requirement (i.e. faliure to comply would result in committing a criminal offence) then the words "MUST/MUST NOT" will be used.

Where the words "SHOULD/SHOULD NOT" or "DO/DO NOT" are used they are just advisory wordings. Although faliure to comply with advice from the Highway code can be used to establish liability in court.

So quite simply, as the highway code says "You should never ride more than two abreast, and ride in single file on narrow or busy roads and when riding round bends."

Riding two abreast (or infact more than that) is legal in all situations, however if you were to be involved in an acident, or casue one when in more than two abreast, or in more than single file on narrow/busy roads and going round bends then it may be possible for others to establish liability on your behalf (meaning your potential insurance payout could be reduced, or worse your payout to someone else could be increased)

So if you just stick to what's said: on narrow or busy roads, and when going round bends stay in single file, all other times you can ride single or maximum of two a breast. That way your legal (not that it's in debate) and if someone tries to blame you you shouldn't be found liable due to your road posistioning in relation to other cyclists (obviously there is argument as to what constitues "narrow/busy and bends for that matter but just use your brain and think "what would the resonable person consider narrow/busy/bends" as that would be the test used in court)

spen666

Ollieda wrote:

.....

Riding two abreast (or infact more than that) is legal in all situations, ...

not as black and white as that.

It is possible that you could get prosecuted for careless and inconsiderate cycling if you ride 2 abreast in a situation which causes inconvenience or dangerto other road users.

It is a matter of judgement in each case

snailracer

Drysuitdiver wrote:

... when we exercise harder we respire more. the laws of physics and chemistry still apply so we emit more CO2.

Total CO2 emissions only increase if we eat more.
If I stopped riding my bike but ate the same, the food ends up being converted to extra body fat. That fat will then release extra CO2 when I die and the bacteria/worms digest my fatter body :shock:

This is probably not a good point to raise in CAKE STOP.

dilemna

What I don't like is trucks that drive 2 abreast along a motorway or the A14 for miles and miles and miles causing a HUGE tail back.

snailracer

dilemna wrote:

What I don't like is trucks that drive 2 abreast along a motorway or the A14 for miles and miles and miles causing a HUGE tail back.

Puts cycling 2 abreast in perspective, really.

Pross

dilemna wrote:

What I don't like is trucks that drive 2 abreast along a motorway or the A14 for miles and miles and miles causing a HUGE tail back.

Or on the A42 where there are signs saying it is illegal between certain hours. No one ever blasts them though for some reason!

keef66

Is it not nowadays called Vehicle Excise Duty?

And don't get me started about lorries overtaking with glacial slowness on the A14, even on the sections where it's prohibited.

rick_chasey

dilemna wrote:

What I don't like is trucks that drive 2 abreast along a motorway or the A14 for miles and miles and miles causing a HUGE tail back.

Indeed - that 0.04kph difference is apparently enough to justify passing the lorry infront.

Anyone know why they do that?

I've always been told that I shouldn't really mess with people who spend their lives on the road, so I tend to leave them to it, (rather than flash, blast horn, etc) but it is very irritating.

Pross

I think they find it easy going in the slipstream of the truck in front and think they could overtake easily only to find a combination of a slight gradient and air resistance makes it harder than it looks (a bit like me trying to get to the front on a club run :oops: ). I got stuck for the entire length of the M49 on one occassion only for the overtaking lorry to then have to brake and get back into the inside lane to take the M5 turn :x

snailracer

Could also be due to speed limiters.

rick_chasey

snailracer wrote:

Could also be due to speed limiters.

Most likely is - hence the small difference in speed.

Still though, why pass if it takes 20 minutes to gain the length of a lorry - there's virtually no time gained.

snailracer

Rick Chasey wrote:

snailracer wrote:

Could also be due to speed limiters.

Most likely is - hence the small difference in speed.

Still though, why pass if it takes 20 minutes to gain the length of a lorry - there's virtually no time gained.

Intelligence limiters.

Ollieda

spen666 wrote:

Ollieda wrote:

.....

Riding two abreast (or infact more than that) is legal in all situations, ...

not as black and white as that.

It is possible that you could get prosecuted for careless and inconsiderate cycling if you ride 2 abreast in a situation which causes inconvenience or dangerto other road users.

It is a matter of judgement in each case

maybe you should have read ther rest of that sentance before simply putting it into your own words?

Ollieda

Rick Chasey wrote:

snailracer wrote:

Could also be due to speed limiters.

Most likely is - hence the small difference in speed.

Still though, why pass if it takes 20 minutes to gain the length of a lorry - there's virtually no time gained.

A truck driver once tried to explain it as not simply overtaking but if you are in the slipstream you gain speed and end up moving faster than the limiter (and therefore the truck infront) so pulling out and overtaking means you don't have to apply the breaks - speed lost from slowing down can take a long time to regain. So it's more avoiding time lost as opposed to simply gaining time.

Still, seems like it would only be a small gain compared to the disruption caused. Guess you have to be a truck driver to really appreciate the time differences

daviesee

keef66 wrote:

Is it not nowadays called Vehicle Excise Duty?

And don't get me started about lorries overtaking with glacial slowness on the A14, even on the sections where it's prohibited.

Apparently it is a Vehicle Tax. The question is - Do you put out more than 100g/km?

Quote:-

Cars registered on or after 1 March 2001 (based on fuel type and CO2 emissions)
The rates shown only apply to cars that have been type approved in category M1 and registered on the basis of CO2 emissions measured in grams per kilometre (g/km) driven. These details are shown on the registration certificate (V5C).

Vehicle tax rates for cars registered on or after 1 March 2001 are split into 13 bands depending on CO2 emissions. The amount you'll pay depends on which band your car is in. The lower a car’s emissions, the lower the vehicle tax payable on it.

Standard Rates - The following table contains the rates of vehicle tax for already registered cars.

Petrol car (TC48) and diesel car (TC49)

Band
CO2 emission (g/km)
12 months rate
6 months rate

A
Up to 100
£0.00
Not available

B
101-110
£20.00
Not available

C
111-120
£30.00
Not available