Groups on country lanes - riding two abreast and more

Escher303

Did 80 plus miles on Sunday. For the entire ride every single car overtook leaving me plenty of room and were courteous and patient. That's a first for me, and very welcome.

But the most significant dangers i generally encounter now comes down to other cyclists and nearly always due to riders riding two or more abreast on slender country lanes. Why on earth do they do it?

A few months ago another cyclist crashed into me at high speed on a blind corner. They were on the wrong side of the lane and crashed into me without warning. It hurt a lot and cost me a fair bit of money. Completely his fault and it was like hitting a tree! He was a big bloke!

Many times recently I've overtaken groups riding across a whole lane going uphill on roads I descend quite regularly and would have crashed into them had I met them the other way. I had to ask them to move over so I could get one bike width clearance to pass.

On Sunday I very nearly crashed head on into another group who were across the whole width of the lane, I was taking it easy as visibility wasn't good but the downhill was steep but I still locked up the back and only just missed them as they moved over with a 'sorry!'

That was the first of another 4 or 5 encounters that day where I met other cyclists on the wrong side of a lane. Fortunately I was being very wary and riding slowly as I was with my girlfriend but had I been on my own I could well have had a crash.

What are they thinking? Do they assume that they only need to worry about cars as they can hear them coming? Ive seen this behaviour by the whole gamut of cyclists, clubs, weekend riders, very experienced and the not so and it is fast becoming the biggest harzard of any ride I do. why on earth can't other cyclists expect other cyclists to be coming the other way and leave room on country lanes? If you are riding country lanes then other cyclists will be too! Many of the places I am referring to are very popular cycling areas and national cycling routes (Lancashire, Yorkshire, Cumbria).

What gives?

slowbike

There's a group local to me who seem to take up the whole road with 20-30 riders on narrow country lanes - about 1 1/2 car width. That's why I wouldn't want to join them - their road riding etiquette leaves a lot to be desired ...

I'd suggest that if you can identify the group then it's worth contacting them and lodging a complaint - it's a good way to pass on issues to ride leaders who should be controlling the group.

rolf_f

One point - two abreast shouldn't be a problem in any circumstances. That's a car width and you should always be ready for a car around the next corner. If you are going round a corner and hit a cyclist riding two abreast, and the lane is single car width, then presumably you'd have also hit a car at the same location.

That said, I wouldn't ride two abreast unless I could see what was coming far enough away to react to it.

I have to admit though, riding in groups I'm much happier going single file as soon as possible - even when logically it might be better to stay two abreast.

rodgers73

Rolf F wrote:

If you are going round a corner and hit a cyclist riding two abreast, and the lane is single car width, then presumably you'd have also hit a car at the same location.

Doesnt that just back up what the OP said about not riding two abreast in the first place though?

diy

As anyone who has ever done any advanced driver training will know - the golden rule is always be able to stop on your own side of the road in the distance you can see to be clear (double on a single lane road.)

A lot of cyclists seem to think the road is a training/race course and that road safety and courtesy are secondary considerations.

The other rider would probably have to pay damages if you sued him and he could afford to pay. Annoyingly, he has no duty to stop and exchange details with you following the crash. So the chances of getting what you need to issue a claim is minimal.

thegodplato

Hi Ric, I hope it wasn't our club you came across!! Having only been out with them they do ride 2 abreast but not all the time. Climbing is a different issue due to 15 riders having differing abilities so I would suspect that could be good reason why they are spread out going up a hill. I always try to make sure I can see ahead and its safe to pass but, just like driving, you do sometimes not always pay full attention, especially if you are puffing and panting upa steep incline!
Joking aside, it is the narrower ( supposedly quiter ) lanes they will ride 2 abreast. On main A roads its single file and we even split up a bit so there is a gap for a car to fit in, if the group is large and the car wouldn't possibly have time to get past the long line.

amaferanga

diy wrote:

As anyone who has ever done any advanced driver training will know - the golden rule is always be able to stop on your own side of the road in the distance you can see to be clear (double on a single lane road.)

A lot of cyclists seem to think the road is a training/race course and that road safety and courtesy are secondary considerations.

The other rider would probably have to pay damages if you sued him and he could afford to pay. Annoyingly, he has no duty to stop and exchange details with you following the crash. So the chances of getting what you need to issue a claim is minimal.

Really? As opposed to most motorists who drive courteously and safely at all times?

There are sh!t cyclists and there are sh!t motorists. Some people may be sh!t at both and just have no road sense whatsoever.

rolf_f

rodgers73 wrote:

Rolf F wrote:

If you are going round a corner and hit a cyclist riding two abreast, and the lane is single car width, then presumably you'd have also hit a car at the same location.

Doesnt that just back up what the OP said about not riding two abreast in the first place though?

Sort of but also not sort of! My point was really as per diy's comment below mine. If (if - OP doesn't say) the road is less than two lanes width, you can't refer to 'your side of the road' as it is shared. Obviously (hopefully) cyclists shouldn't be riding two abreast round blind corners but as long as they and anyone coming the opposite direction can stop in less than the distance they can see it shouldn't matter that much.

Akirasho

... locally, we try to be courteous to ALL users and hope for the same (course, local country lanes are usually the super highways of guys in the Ford F250 superdutys). if conditions are appropriate, we take the lane... if not, we single file it...

Also, folks in general are assumptive... blind corners are always for the other guy!!!!!

Bozman

90% of my cycling is on country lanes and you do get a lot of folk two a breast and packs flying a round blind bends, all that bothers me is - "what if i was driving a car?", but everyone knows the risk, if you ride like that you've just got to expect to get hit one day but just don't look for sympathy.
I get enough near misses on my own but you come to expect that on a narrow country lane, one day a van will come flying round a bend and clip me or collect me but i'll take my chances on country lanes rather than busy A roads.

Tom Dean

rodgers73 wrote:

Rolf F wrote:

If you are going round a corner and hit a cyclist riding two abreast, and the lane is single car width, then presumably you'd have also hit a car at the same location.

Doesnt that just back up what the OP said about not riding two abreast in the first place though?

No, it means the OP is going way too fast, an oncoming car would likely be going faster than the cyclists, giving even less chance of avoiding an accident.

rolf_f

Tom Dean wrote:

rodgers73 wrote:

Rolf F wrote:

If you are going round a corner and hit a cyclist riding two abreast, and the lane is single car width, then presumably you'd have also hit a car at the same location.

Doesnt that just back up what the OP said about not riding two abreast in the first place though?

No, it means the OP is going way too fast, an oncoming car would likely be going faster than the cyclists, giving even less chance of avoiding an accident.

To be fair to the OP we don't know that yet. The OP could have been at walking pace but still been hit by any vehicle (cyclist or car) coming round the corner too quickly.

I think the point is that, if the lane is single track, then the fault is not down to whose side of the road the other cyclist was on but purely speed (theirs or the OPs or both).

The OP didn't specifically state he was on a single lane road but I think the thread title implies it.

Tom Dean

Since the OP was coming down a steep hill I was assuming those coming the other way weren't going as fast.

Rolf F wrote:

I think the point is that, if the lane is single track, then the fault is not down to whose side of the road the other cyclist was on but purely speed (theirs or the OPs or both).

This is spot on. The 'wrong' side of the road is often the right place to be wrt visibility.

Guanajuato

Akirasho wrote:

I've always found cycling on the correct side of the road helps.


:P

And, just in case you can't see the sarcasm...



And in seriousness, I'm a lone rider. But a few times I've come up behind a few riders in a group. If I'm faster, I'll overtake as if I was driving, after giving a friendly call to let them know I'm there. I had a guy come up behind me the other day on a steep hill. he called out 'Keep going' as he went past. I nearly rode into the gutter it made me jump so much. :oops:

Akirasho

Guanajuato wrote:

Akirasho wrote:

I've always found cycling on the correct side of the road helps.


:P

And, just in case you can't see the sarcasm...

... yes, it does beg the Q... what in the hell is wrong wit U Brits??!!??? :roll:

Escher303

Just to clarify when I was crashed into I was on a country lane, going uphill not particularly fast and I was a foot and a half from the left of the road. Two cyclists riding two abreast came down the hill at speed and one of them was on my side and crashed straight into me. I had absolutely nowhere to go, it was on a corner, which he was cutting and he was right on my side. I saw him coming for a split second but could not avoid him. If I was going 2mph he still would have hit me. It was 100% his fault. I was riding on the inside, carefully and not at high speed. Had it been a motorised vehicle I would have heard it coming and had more warning.

Another cyclist cutting a blind corner at high speed and riding right over on the wrong side of the road crashing into me was not my fault! And especially as riding more slowly and carefully wouldn't have changed the outcome one iota.

Just before it had happened I passed 30 or 40 cyclists along the same lane, doing some sort of event on mtbs and hybrids, and many of them were all over the road, riding in big groups and riding on the wrong side, they did not look very inexperienced. I was being extra careful as I thought there would be more to come. so it was ironic then to be hit head on by an experienced cyclist on a group ride.

Escher303

Oh, and yes I could stop in the distance I could see, it was the other cyclist that couldn't. If I was stationary he still would have hit me. The same would have happened to any of you, a single lane road may have no sides, but it is pretty sensible to ride on the left as much as you can. To suggest otherwise is nuts and kind of proves my point as maybe the people I see riding lanes as though there are no sides include the idiot who crashed into me and probably now he rides quite differently on lanes.

de_sisti

Escher303 wrote:

Oh, and yes I could stop in the distance I could see, it was the other cyclist that couldn't. If I was stationary he still would have hit me. The same would have happened to any of you, a single lane road may have no sides, but it is pretty sensible to ride on the left as much as you can. To suggest otherwise is nuts and kind of proves my point as maybe the people I see riding lanes as though there are no sides include the idiot who crashed into me and probably now he rides quite differently on lanes.

Did he/she stop? Did you get their details so that they could compensate you for any outlay you had to make to
fix your bike?

Tom Dean

Fair enough Escher303, it sounds like the person who hit you was going too fast, not you.

Did your position on the left make you more or less visible to oncoming traffic? You say the accident would have occured the same at 2mph, what if a car came at 30? You would have heard it and got off your bike and waited on the verge?

Maybe if you had ridden a bit further out on a blind corner you would have been seen and the accident avoided.

Wunnunda

There is an depressing lack of basic roadcraft on show these days, whether the road user is of the cycling or 'tinned' variety.

Had an instance a year or so back where was in my car on a very narrow 'B' road about to turn up a hill. Looking across the bend (basic road craft) I could see a party of cyclists coming down the hill at some speed. I slowed right down and, by luck, left enough space in front to give the lead cyclist time to see me as he came round the corner in the middle of the road.... Chaos then ensued as 13 or 14 cyclists in a family party on a mix of MTBs, roadies and hybrids appeared and immediately froze for a split second (I have never seen so many whites of so many eyes...) They had time to miss me but 4 or 5 came off at some speed as they panicked and hit each other. Ridiculous and nothing I could do about it.

My old driving instructor (I learnt 40 years ago on (much) quieter rural roads) gave me a great piece of ARIA : imagine that around that bend is a horse or stationary tractor and ask yourself - could I stop? Simple really but it's frightening how many can't visualize that kind of thing.

diy

Tom Dean wrote:

Since the OP was coming down a steep hill I was assuming those coming the other way weren't going as fast.

Rolf F wrote:

I think the point is that, if the lane is single track, then the fault is not down to whose side of the road the other cyclist was on but purely speed (theirs or the OPs or both).

This is spot on. The 'wrong' side of the road is often the right place to be wrt visibility.

Only to maintain vision, never to obtain it. If you are going round a left hander its ok to stay out and potentially offside if it enables you to see through the bend (I.e see the exit). If its just to get a better view then you need to factor in time required to get back over and the risk of what the other person will do in seeing you on the offside vs the benefit of a better view. Tbh I wouldn't even consider it on a cycle. Maybe a motorbike where the speeds can be higher. But most advanced plod courses don't teach off siding anymore.

Tom Dean

I don't get the distinction.

If the road is one car wide, 'time to get back over' is irrelevant surely?

edit: if by 'maintain vision' you mean to be seen, that's what I meant.

CambsNewbie

If I'm out with the other half even if we don't have to, I'll try and tuck in behind him when a car comes up. I know technically and legally I don't have to but I think it's just being polite to other road users.

diy

Tom Dean wrote:

I don't get the distinction.

If the road is one car wide, 'time to get back over' is irrelevant surely?

edit: if by 'maintain vision' you mean to be seen, that's what I meant.

See http://www.deals4insurance.co.uk/motorc ... ition.html.

Look at the Diagram in avoiding hazards. The rest of the article/advice is not suitable for cyclists due to our inability to maintain speed at or above the 85th %ile for the road. Which is the basic difference between cycle and motorbike from a road safety point of view.

If going to the off side means you can see the exit, then the distance you can see to be clear is much greater than the extra needed to return. If you are just extending your view to the vanishing point you gain nothing.

oldwelshman

Well to be honest I think the simplest thing for both the op and others is to stay away from single track lanes with fast descents with blind corners. Just find some routes with wider lanes Riding such narrow lanes, with hedgerow and trees is always going to be a risky business as you never know whats arond the corner. If I had been hit on one such ride I would not go on same road again for sure.

simon_masterson

Fair points. It does mildly irritate me when the most 'serious' looking cyclists are the worst behaved.

On some of the roads around here cycling groups will come out in force and hold up the traffic, and to be honest I have to sympathise with the motorists. I get that if you're doing 100 miles you may well be pacing yourself, but that does mean that you shouldn't be riding slowly but defensively. Either speed up or let the queue through!

diy

I think that is the issue. The mental focus is on cadence, speed, smoothness, maintaining the pack etc. not what the road and traffic are doing. It also depends where you ride too. I live within spitting distance of the box hill olympic circuit and its pretty busy with club riders most weekends and evenings.

I think there is also far too much assumed about road riding etiquette.

crescent

As a relative newcomer to group/club riding I was slightly surprised by the fact that the group I was in ride two abreast and tend to avoid the cycle paths in favour of the road. If I was in my car and saw a group of a dozen or so riders on the road when there is a cycle path available I would probably be somewhat annoyed about it. However, I also understand that, in several instances, the cycle path is also a footpath and not particularly appropriate for a large group of cyclists. I had a look through the highway code to see what the actual recommendations were for cyclists and found it to be something of a grey area. Cyclists are recommended to cycle in single file and no more than two abreast when road conditions allow and to use a cycle path when appropriate to do so. None of this is compulsory though, something which I think a lot of people (myself included) do not fully understand. I suspect a lot of drivers expect cyclists to be in single file and on a cycle path all the time and hence the somewhat aggressive response in many cases. From a cycling perspective though it makes sense to maintain a presence on the road by riding two abreast and also to maintain discipline by communicating when vehicles are approaching, I imagine many motorists do not understand that this communication between riders goes on. It's a difficult one to resolve and probably the main bone of contention between cyclists and motorists.

Tom Dean

diy wrote:

See http://www.deals4insurance.co.uk/motorc ... ition.html.

Did you read my post? This deals with crossing the white lines on a double width road which is not what is being discussed.

FJS

Crescent wrote:

As a relative newcomer to group/club riding I was slightly surprised by the fact that the group I was in ride two abreast and tend to avoid the cycle paths in favour of the road. If I was in my car and saw a group of a dozen or so riders on the road when there is a cycle path available I would probably be somewhat annoyed about it. However, I also understand that, in several instances, the cycle path is also a footpath and not particularly appropriate for a large group of cyclists. I had a look through the highway code to see what the actual recommendations were for cyclists and found it to be something of a grey area. Cyclists are recommended to cycle in single file and no more than two abreast when road conditions allow and to use a cycle path when appropriate to do so. None of this is compulsory though, something which I think a lot of people (myself included) do not fully understand. I suspect a lot of drivers expect cyclists to be in single file and on a cycle path all the time and hence the somewhat aggressive response in many cases.

The problem here is the poor design of the joke that are cycle paths here - if they would be wide enough, don't go up and down pavements with twists and turns and crazy chicanes around lampposts, not full of rubbish, wouldn't give priority to every single small side road, and not shared with pedestrians, groups of club riders could actually use them. I'm sure most motorists, and even many occasional family cyclists think they're fine for all cyclists, but that doesn't make it so.

cougie

A lot of bike paths are completely unsuitable to club rides. There's only one round here that I use - its road the rest of the time.

We ride side by side on quiet or wider roads - singling out when necessary. It doesn't pay to pee motorists off.