This give cyclists a bad name.

Cannock Chase

Today while cycling to watch the Tour of Britain I saw one of those situations which gives us cyclists a bad name. I was on the B5013 between Rugeley (Staffs) and Admaston Bank, which was where I was heading to watch the race. From a side road in front of me a large group of cyclists pulled out and carried on in the same direction as me. They were obviously going to watch the race as well. Despite the fact that this stretch of the B5013 is quite busy and very bendy, the group insisted on cycling two abreast. The queue of traffic behind them soon built up as no one could overtake them. Now I don't care what the Highway Code says, or what the 'rules of the road are' the actions of these riders did not put cyclists in a good light. Moan over.

slowondefy2

Comment deleted

gabriel959

Cannock Chase wrote:

Today while cycling to watch the Tour of Britain I saw one of those situations which gives us cyclists a bad name. I was on the B5013 between Rugeley (Staffs) and Admaston Bank, which was where I was heading to watch the race. From a side road in front of me a large group of cyclists pulled out and carried on in the same direction as me. They were obviously going to watch the race as well. Despite the fact that this stretch of the B5013 is quite busy and very bendy, the group insisted on cycling two abreast. The queue of traffic behind them soon built up as no one could overtake them. Now I don't care what the Highway Code says, or what the 'rules of the road are' the actions of these riders did not put cyclists in a good light. Moan over.

The rules of the road say that if the road is a busy road then you should ride in single file. They were therefore breaking the law.

t.m.h.n.e.t

gabriel959 wrote:

Cannock Chase wrote:

Today while cycling to watch the Tour of Britain I saw one of those situations which gives us cyclists a bad name. I was on the B5013 between Rugeley (Staffs) and Admaston Bank, which was where I was heading to watch the race. From a side road in front of me a large group of cyclists pulled out and carried on in the same direction as me. They were obviously going to watch the race as well. Despite the fact that this stretch of the B5013 is quite busy and very bendy, the group insisted on cycling two abreast. The queue of traffic behind them soon built up as no one could overtake them. Now I don't care what the Highway Code says, or what the 'rules of the road are' the actions of these riders did not put cyclists in a good light. Moan over.

The rules of the road say that if the road is a busy road then you should ride in single file. They were therefore breaking the law.

Which law would that be?

Tom M

Is difficult to comment without seeing the situation exactly, but would it not have presented a greater hazard to have a longer line of single-file riders? Is it really going to kill people to have a bit of patience? Is not like people don't encounter other slow moving or large road users is it?

I get overtaken by idiots all the time doing stuff like passing just before turning left in front of me, or to reach the back of a queue of traffic when I'll just filter straight past again. Seems to be some sort of mindset that if there is a cyclist you must overtake immediately.

As for the legality gabriel959, no it is not the law. The highway code section containing that advice says:

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

Note my emphasis on should. Is a suggestion, not the law.

bompington

T.M.H.N.E.T wrote:

Which law would that be?

Tom Dean

What exactly would give cyclists a good name? Doing exactly what the stupidest motorist would like at all times i.e. never cause any inconvenience, regardless of safety?

t.m.h.n.e.t

bompington wrote:

T.M.H.N.E.T wrote:

Which law would that be?

Apparently not

karlth

Indeed we do, but if you're ignoring the advice of the highway code it doesn't take Rumpole of the Bailey to convince a magistrate that you're guilty of causing an obstruction or inconsiderate riding or something of that ilk.

gabriel959

Tom M wrote:

Is difficult to comment without seeing the situation exactly, but would it not have presented a greater hazard to have a longer line of single-file riders? Is it really going to kill people to have a bit of patience? Is not like people don't encounter other slow moving or large road users is it?

I get overtaken by idiots all the time doing stuff like passing just before turning left in front of me, or to reach the back of a queue of traffic when I'll just filter straight past again. Seems to be some sort of mindset that if there is a cyclist you must overtake immediately.

As for the legality gabriel959, no it is not the law. The highway code section containing that advice says:

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

Note my emphasis on should. Is a suggestion, not the law.

I know it says it should but if there is an accident in these circumstances the driver of the car, even if at fault, will probably not be penalised because the cyclists where riding 2 abreast. Same case for insurance claims.

To me if it says you should it really is you must

kieranb

Tom M wrote:

As for the legality gabriel959, no it is not the law. The highway code section containing that advice says:

66
You should
•keep both feet on the pedals


Note my emphasis on should. Is a suggestion, not the law.

Does that mean we should all be doing track stands at the lights?

Tom Dean

gabriel959 wrote:

I know it says it should but if there is an accident in these circumstances the driver of the car, even if at fault, will probably not be penalised because the cyclists where riding 2 abreast. Same case for insurance claims.

To me if it says you should it really is you must

Is this how you assess the safety of a situation? - how likely is an offending driver to be penalised in court?

Better to try to avoid an accident rather than worry about your chances of an insurance claim before one happens.

petemadoc

Cannock Chase wrote:

Today while cycling to watch the Tour of Britain I saw one of those situations which gives us cyclists a bad name. I was on the B5013 between Rugeley (Staffs) and Admaston Bank, which was where I was heading to watch the race. From a side road in front of me a large group of cyclists pulled out and carried on in the same direction as me. They were obviously going to watch the race as well. Despite the fact that this stretch of the B5013 is quite busy and very bendy, the group insisted on cycling two abreast. The queue of traffic behind them soon built up as no one could overtake them. Now I don't care what the Highway Code says, or what the 'rules of the road are' the actions of these riders did not put cyclists in a good light. Moan over.

In my view if it's not safe to overtake a group of riders riding 2 a breast then it's probably not safe to pass them when they're in single file either.

Wait until it's safe, then overtake... simple

99thmonkey

I am sure that theres a law that states you must not intentionally disturb the natural flow of traffic so for example its the same law that makes tractors pull over every now and then to let vehicles pass

t.m.h.n.e.t

99thmonkey wrote:

I am sure that theres a law that states you must not intentionally disturb the natural flow of traffic so for example its the same law that makes tractors pull over every now and then to let vehicles pass

Nope, just advisory wording

gabriel959

Tom Dean wrote:

gabriel959 wrote:

I know it says it should but if there is an accident in these circumstances the driver of the car, even if at fault, will probably not be penalised because the cyclists where riding 2 abreast. Same case for insurance claims.

To me if it says you should it really is you must

Is this how you assess the safety of a situation? - how likely is an offending driver to be penalised in court?

Better to try to avoid an accident rather than worry about your chances of an insurance claim before one happens.

No, of course not. But most of the shoulds are also common sense.

GavH

"Do not overtake unless it is safe to do so" - My driving instructor, circa 1996.

That pearl of wisdom has stood me in good stead ever since, because it really is quite simple and obvious. Anyone who thinks that the "safe to do so" bit becomes irrelevant because it's a group of cyclists is an idiot.

Tom Dean

gabriel959 wrote:

No, of course not. But most of the shoulds are also common sense.

This one isn't.

gabriel959

In your opinion. My opinion, and rules we follow at the Cambridge CC are of following that advice and we have got a pretty good safety record for over a hundred years.

Tom Dean

It depends on the situation. Following this rule without taking the situation into account is stupid. Do you always single out on bends too?

smidsy

Vehicles should give cyclist the same amount of room when overtaking as if it were any other vehicle i.e they should cross the centre line of the road completely.

If this is applied it is irrelevant if they cycle two abreast or single file.

Riding two abreast reduces the length of the line of bilkes by half and therefore one could argue makes it easier to overtake (as the car needs less time to get past the queue of bikes).

Easy initt!!!

Gizmodo

Cannock Chase wrote:

Today while cycling to watch the Tour of Britain I saw one of those situations which gives us cyclists a bad name. I was on the B5013 between Rugeley (Staffs) and Admaston Bank, which was where I was heading to watch the race. From a side road in front of me a large group of cyclists pulled out and carried on in the same direction as me. They were obviously going to watch the race as well. Despite the fact that this stretch of the B5013 is quite busy and very bendy, the group insisted on cycling two abreast. The queue of traffic behind them soon built up as no one could overtake them. Now I don't care what the Highway Code says, or what the 'rules of the road are' the actions of these riders did not put cyclists in a good light. Moan over.

Had it been a tractor with a trailer carrying a large load of hay (which I often see also living in Cannock) would you have gone onto a farmers forum saying that driving slowly on the public highway gives them a bad name?

I get frustrated as a driver when slower vehicles delay my right to speed - but I also understand that they have rights as well.

colsoop

I cycle that stretch of road quite regularly its not particulalrly narrow or bendy.
When i cycle by myself i tend to find cars hold back a little bit due to the blind dips.

From my experience part of the queue of cars will be down to a hesitant driver, not overtaking when they get the chance meaning traffic builds up.

Im willing to bet if it was a milk float on that same stretch of road the traffic situation would be the same, but everyone just accepts milk floats as slow :roll:

oldwelshman

what about this then? Against the law?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z0AzS34khQc&feature=plcp

sub55

oldwelshman wrote:

what about this then? Against the law?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z0AzS34khQc&feature=plcp

No its not, there's no constant white line so technically speaking , there's no wrong side of the road.
Legally , you can ride 3/4/5 abreast if you wish, as long as you dont cross a constant white line.
If there's a broken white line , you are entitled to ride down the wrong side of the road.
As long as you pass on coming vehicles to the left.

negativelycra

I love this debate, it goes on in circles on every forum.
As a cyclist, or a group of cyclists, the rider has the right to ride 2 abreast, effectively enforcing a wide overtake etc. Similarly, a group of 3 caravanners have the right to follow each other down a country road with no gaps making every other road user do 30mph because noone can overtake.
Both scenarios are equally legal, and equally selfish. All it takes is for some consideration of others, pull in briefly or whatever, and the world is a better place. "us and them" mentality exists on all sides of road users, and IMO those that consider roads as "us and them" - whether they are drivers, bikers, riders, cyclists, walkers or truckers, I don't hold them in anything other than low regard.

Simm0

+1 Well said buddy.

diy

I agree with the OP. riding in a peleton on a narrow busy road even if its just two a breast, is selfish and doesn't do anything to encourage empathy with cyclists. Deliberately "packing" to prevent people from passing is also just as stupid. I have also never seen anyone with any real knowledge present the benefits of two a breast over staggered riding. The argument that you are shorter shows a lack of understanding of the correct way to assess an overtake. Its time exposed to danger that is important not time taken to overtake. Proximity to danger is everything.

with regard to the comments about the law (most of which are clueless) - It would help to start by understanding the difference between civil liability for damages, liability for personal injury and road traffic (and other) offences.

It is an offence to willfully obstruct the highway
Section 137 of the Highways Act 1980 (as amended)

Failure to adhere to the rules of the highway code can be grounds for both careless and inconsiderate driving, it is also the basis of damages settlements in courts up and down the land every day of the week. Most of the rules are backed up by road traffic law anyway.

smidsy

The argument that you are shorter shows a lack of understanding of the correct way to assess an overtake. Its time exposed to danger that is important not time taken to overtake.

Yes so if the line of bikes is twice as long it takes twice as loing to overtake - given that this means being on the wrong side of the road for the overtalking vehicle THEY ARE EXPOSED TO DANGER (from oncoming vehicles, side streets etc.) LONGER.

It is an offence to willfully obstruct the highway Section 137 of the Highways Act 1980 (as amended)

Yes but riding two abreast does not obstruct the highway as long as you remain on the correct side of the road and do not cross any centre lines, broken or otherwise.

Tom Dean

diy wrote:

a peloton

:roll:

t.m.h.n.e.t

diy wrote:

with regard to the comments about the law (most of which are clueless) - It would help to start by understanding the difference between civil liability for damages, liability for personal injury and road traffic (and other) offences.

It is an offence to willfully obstruct the highway
Section 137 of the Highways Act 1980 (as amended)

Failure to adhere to the rules of the highway code can be grounds for both careless and inconsiderate driving, it is also the basis of damages settlements in courts up and down the land every day of the week. Most of the rules are backed up by road traffic law anyway.

You're pretty clueless yourself

It actually says

If a person, without lawful authority or excuse, in any way wilfully obstructs the free passage along a highway he is guilty of an offence and liable to a fine not exceeding [F1level 3 on the standard scale].

This does NOT refer to traffic using the road but for example: Hire skips blocking access to footpaths. Is also applicable to farmers/contractors and the like during silage time and spreading muck across roads.