Pulled over by police
vs4b
Posts: 257
On a leisurely ride with some mates, riding two abreast through a quiet village and got pulled over. Plod tells me I'm not allowed to ride two up and must ride in line. after a free and frank exchange of views and my explaining the highway code he let's me ride off. I was frankly astonished even more so as he had no really compelling reasons why I should do as he said apart from the cars going slower. Made the other with me laugh once I caught them back up.
Wondered if anyone else had had similar experiences?
Wondered if anyone else had had similar experiences?
0
Comments
-
Im sick to the back teeth of riders two or three abreast who refuse to single file for traffic at certain spots on the road, I totally understand the safety aspect and have no issues if there is adequate space for cars to pass, but for gods sake it pisses me off when they refuse to move back in when a traffic island appears or the road narrows so as to create a tailback of cars.
theres no problems doing it but if your going to be a tw@t and think you own the road then go find another sport.MADONE 5.20 -
"never ride more than two abreast, and ride in single file on narrow or busy roads and when riding round bends"0
-
Captainlip wrote:it pisses me off when they refuse to move back in when a traffic island appears or the road narrows so as to create a tailback of cars.
Surely they're better off being two abreast rather than single file when there's a traffic island to stop idiots from trying to squeeze past between the rider and the island?0 -
When not a cyclist and a driver im more than happy to pass three abreast if the space is there to do so, last time out near oulton two dickheads insisted using vitually a whole A road lane between the two of them, neither of them checked at anypoint for traffic, by the time I passed them there was a very disgruntled queue behind on a quiet sunday morning.
things have got to change.MADONE 5.20 -
I'm with the copper, i come across riders in pairs with a queue of cars behind them or on a tight windy road and it amazes me that they seem so damn oblivious to the traffic around them, it's as if they feel they're in this inpenetrable bubble.
There's a time and a place.0 -
vs4b wrote:On a leisurely ride with some mates, riding two abreast through a quiet village and got pulled over. Plod tells me I'm not allowed to ride two up and must ride in line. after a free and frank exchange of views and my explaining the highway code he let's me ride off. I was frankly astonished even more so as he had no really compelling reasons why I should do as he said apart from the cars going slower. Made the other with me laugh once I caught them back up.
Wondered if anyone else had had similar experiences?
Special Constable, perhaps? Community Support Officer? Some of them (and I stress *some* - I'm not hating here!) know absolutely nothing about the law, but think they do. A real cop should at least know that, its basic stuff.0 -
There obviously isn't a law which states you can not ride abreast. However, you should apply common sense and not ride abreast when you're clearly blocking the road for other road users.
If someone is doing otherwise, blocking up traffic, I believe it can be considered as "causing a disturbance" which is an offence.0 -
I can't understand why riding 2 abreast is allowed at all. If you need to prevent unsafe overtakes use primary. The only reason for riding 2 up is to chat which, speaking as an occasionally distracted and selfish rider, is distracting and selfish.0
-
I'd have splashed him with water from my bidon, given him something to arrest me for!!!One plays football, tennis or golf, one does not play at cycling0
-
There is a law which states you must not cycle without due consideration for other road users...
http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1988/52/section/29Insta: ATEnduranceCoaching
ABCC Cycling Coach0 -
Take it with consideration to the OP's post;
riding two abreast through a quiet village and got pulled over
Plod tells me I'm not allowed to ride two up and must ride in line. This is just plain wrong.
I dont think the OP would do it in a busy village....0 -
While driving the other week, I got held up by 2 plods riding abreast in the dark. Couldn't believe my eyes! They of all people should know better.0
-
Saw two women 4 abreast the other day.I may be a minority of one but that doesn't prevent me from being right.
http://www.dalynchi.com0 -
2Phat4Rapha wrote:Saw two women 4 abreast the other day.
Some sense at last.0 -
2Phat4Rapha wrote:Saw two women 4 abreast the other day.
It wasn't the cast from This Morning by any chance was it? :roll:0 -
Captainlip wrote:...but for gods sake it pisses me off when they refuse to move back in when a traffic island appears...
That's the most logical place to do it. You should never be overtaking when there's a traffic island. Some of the stuff I see on this forum astounds me.0 -
Absolutely! The point of riding primary through the narrowings around traffic island is precisely so idiots can't try to squeeze through. And that's for single riders.WisePranker wrote:Captainlip wrote:it pisses me off when they refuse to move back in when a traffic island appears or the road narrows so as to create a tailback of cars.
Surely they're better off being two abreast rather than single file when there's a traffic island to stop idiots from trying to squeeze past between the rider and the island?
I take your point on busy roads, but as the poster above pointed out the highway code already stipulates that.0 -
In most liklihood, the cops just wanted something to do, or to say their peice. Being a copper in the city, we don't really find this occurring much, if at all, & if i did see it, chances are i wouldn't have time to stop & chat about it. Unless the person in question would fail the 'atttude test', they would just get some pertinent words of advice & asked to move on in the correct fashion, as the road would require.
Anyway, from a purely cyclist perspective, i don't mind this too much, if the road & conditions permit. However, too many cyclists think they have a divine right to be two abreast at all times, totally ignoring the blatantly obvious like being a narrow road, very busy road, bad conditions, etc...
It just gives all the common sense riders a bad name, & frankly it is dangerous.0 -
Sounds like coppers acting like ignorant motorists.
Mind you there are a lot of ignorant cyclists out there too.0 -
Well, I guess you could say that it's just a bit selfish for car drivers to drive big wide vehicles that take up the whole lane (and, incidentally, also allow chatting to someone in the passenger seat) when they just have one passenger or even none... Why can't urban motorised vehicles be half the width, with room for a passenger behind the driver? Because we (society collectively) don't have the imagination or the guts to make such big changes and fight the vested interests in the motor industry.Pickled Pig wrote:I can't understand why riding 2 abreast is allowed at all. If you need to prevent unsafe overtakes use primary. The only reason for riding 2 up is to chat which, speaking as an occasionally distracted and selfish rider, is distracting and selfish.
Obviously there is no excuse for riding 2 abreast in circumstances where you are blocking traffic unnecessarily, but at the same time it should be an absolute right to do so on quiet roads when there is no traffic, as long as you move back into single file to let cars past when they approach from behind and it is safe to do so. Similarly cars should have a bit of patience and be prepared to slow down for a couple of seconds until cyclists have had a chance to move into single file.
Half of the problem is that sometimes cyclists riding two abreast aren't immediately aware that there is a car behind them, especially if they are riding at a reasonable speed and there is wind noise. Also drivers aren't always aware that the cyclist isn't aware, so assume that they are blocking the road maliciously. This leads me on to my second suggestion for the motor industry - for years I have been proposing that all cars should have at least two different horn sounds operated by two different buttons, a "friendly" one and a less friendly one. The friendly one would be a little trilling sound, instead of the aggressive sounding "honk" of the normal horn, and would be used to thank / acknowledge other road users, alert others to your presence etc. This would diffuse the common misunderstanding where a driver toots his horn briefly to indicate his presence, and the cyclist takes this to be an aggressive exclamation and displays the finger... It would be comical if it wasn't such a tragic catalyst for deterioration of cyclist/driver relations that could be so easily solved with a bit of imagination and communal organisation. I despair of the human race sometimes...0 -
If it isn't safe to overtake riders riding 2 abreast, it isn't safe to overtake when they are 1 abreast.
You should be considerate but it isn't against the law to ride 2, 3 or even 4 abreast and there is no minimum speed limit you should be riding at.
The policeman doesn't know the laws of the road and was out of order.
Would he have pulled over a herse!
If the people policing our roads don't know the law then there really is no hope out there.0 -
Hmm, I think there are many circumstances where this is not true. It depends on the width of the road and other factors.Rodrego Hernandez wrote:If it isn't safe to overtake riders riding 2 abreast, it isn't safe to overtake when they are 1 abreast.
There are circumstances where it is actually safe to overtake a compact group of riders riding 2 abreast when it wouldn't be safe to overtake the same group if they were in single file (because they would be longer). Similarly there are plenty more situations where the opposite is the case, and it is safe to overtake two riders in single file, but not two riders riding abreast.0 -
Rodrego Hernandez wrote:If it isn't safe to overtake riders riding 2 abreast, it isn't safe to overtake when they are 1 abreast.
Absoloutly not true at all!!!
and your second comment is an entirely different situation.
Big part of the issue here is the cyclists themselves.MADONE 5.20 -
The Highway Code states motorists should leave as much room when passing cyclists as when passing cars. If there isn't room to do that then it isn't safe to pass.
It all boils down to driver impatience.
Why is a journey considered more important than a pedestrian or a cyclist's if the person is in a car?0 -
How is this the case when the cyclists themselves feel the need to own the road, create a hazard on the road, and choose to create tailbacks rather than get back single file.
attitudes of cyclists have got to change.MADONE 5.20 -
Attitude of some cyclists I think you mean ?0
-
What's that, then?nunowoolmez wrote:Unless the person in question would fail the 'atttude test...0 -
How is this the case when the cyclists themselves feel the need to own the road, create a hazard on the road, and choose to create tailbacks rather than get back single file.
attitudes of cyclists have got to change.
I have never once in my life seen this. There was one time, I sat behind a large group of cyclists (clearly riding in a sportive type event) for 2 or 3 minutes. They were averaging about 30 or 40 mph on a tasty descent at the time, hence why I sat behind - the oncoming lane was clear. This is on a road I maybe would have been travelling 45-50mph on, so no time lost at all.
Not one other time in 15 years of driving have I been 'held up', or even seen anyone held up by cyclists, whether ten abreast or on a lone mission, for any noticeable length of time. These tailbacks you speak of I haven't even seen on the all seeing eye of YouTube! Maybe I'm naive, or maybe it's the area in which I live (and ride), I don't know. But I'm yet to witness these bizzare and malicious acts of inconsideratism.
Maybe I need to spend some time in London or something. Every once in a while I catch someone without lights, there was even one time I spied a roadie nipping through a red light to make a left turn, but on the whole I don't get why it has become fashionable for cyclists to hate on cyclists. The vast majority I see go to the Nth degree just to make sure they are safe, and yet still occasionally compromise that so as not to inconvenience or antagonise their motorised brothers and sisters.
Where are all these hooligans you speak of terrorising our communities?0 -
Captainlip wrote:How is this the case when the cyclists themselves feel the need to own the road, create a hazard on the road, and choose to create tailbacks rather than get back single file.
attitudes of cyclists have got to change.
Every tailback I've ever seen was caused by too many motor vehicles. The only people I see and hear who claim ownership of the road are drivers with their claims about cyclists not paying a mythical 'road tax'.0 -
Captainlip wrote:How is this the case when the cyclists themselves feel the need to own the road, create a hazard on the road, and choose to create tailbacks rather than get back single file.
attitudes of cyclists have got to change.
Do you take the same attitude with horse riders?0
