When does riding side by side become selfish?

sloppyschleckonds

Animal72 wrote:

<braced for a shoeing>

Commuting home today, by motorbike, on a wide straight b-road.
Was forced almost to a halt by a bloke cycling in the outside wheel-tracks, swerving all over the place chatting to his (female) riding partner.

Little wonder we have a bad reputation with other road users.

When someone like you thinks they have more entitlement to use the road than others

HTH

pblakeney

The only important part of the thread.

Animal72 wrote:

...I slowed down, waited, and passed on the opposite side of the road. No big deal.

This thread is no big deal and should be ignored.

stevie63

The interesting thing about all these types of threads is that motorists never seem to be bothered when they encounter 2 people on horses riding side by side. They slow right down and pass carefully without beeping their horns. And yet horses go so slow on the road that even cyclists have to slow down to pass.

veronese68

Because a horse will do more damage to a car than a cyclist?

rnath

In reply to the OP, I guess the simple answer is when it’s causing an unnecessary obstacle to traffic from behind (including other cyclists). I really don’t understand why some folk can’t summon the common courtesy to single up and let traffic pass. It just seems plain inconsiderate - or stupid - or both. Have to say it’s a pet peeve of mine and I’ve quit a couple of cycling groups (not quite clubs) for exactly this reason - getting regularly beeped by impatient motorists while some fool insists on exercising his right to take up the width of the road. I don’t know why you’d want the aggro? BTW, I don’t drive so don’t have an axe to grind from that POV.

mfin

rnath wrote:

In reply to the OP, I guess the simple answer is when it’s causing an unnecessary obstacle to traffic from behind (including other cyclists). I really don’t understand why some folk can’t summon the common courtesy to single up and let traffic pass. It just seems plain inconsiderate - or stupid - or both. Have to say it’s a pet peeve of mine and I’ve quit a couple of cycling groups (not quite clubs) for exactly this reason - getting regularly beeped by impatient motorists while some fool insists on exercising his right to take up the width of the road. I don’t know why you’d want the aggro? BTW, I don’t drive so don’t have an axe to grind from that POV.

Good post and the attitude and approach to riding that more people should have.

svetty

rnath wrote:

In reply to the OP, I guess the simple answer is when it’s causing an unnecessary obstacle to traffic from behind (including other cyclists). I really don’t understand why some folk can’t summon the common courtesy to single up and let traffic pass. It just seems plain inconsiderate - or stupid - or both. Have to say it’s a pet peeve of mine and I’ve quit a couple of cycling groups (not quite clubs) for exactly this reason - getting regularly beeped by impatient motorists while some fool insists on exercising his right to take up the width of the road. I don’t know why you’d want the aggro? BTW, I don’t drive so don’t have an axe to grind from that POV.

Blimey - sounds like a bit more than a 'pet peeve' :shock: :shock:

If a group cycles in the manner you are suggesting they are perpetually singling up and reverting to pairs every time a car passes. This isn't practical nor a requirement. Also it is often easier for passing cars to get past a short group of paired cyclists than a long line of singled out ones, with the associated risks of 'close passes'.

What isn't reasonable is being inconsiderate and refusing to single out when the group is unnecessarily holding up cars for an excessive time, or taking up more room than a neat and tidy paired formation, or weaving all over the place.

Common sense and a bit of give and take go a long way

Dorset_Boy

I'd suggest that considering overtaking when there's oncoming traffic is pretty selfish, not to mention impatient.

Would the OP pass a horse with oncoming traffic, or say a 50cc scooter?

Mfin has a bee in his bonnet about all cyclists being incompetent on the road, but doesn't seem to understand that passing a shorter line of paired cyclists is usually a lot safer and quicker than passing a long line singled out.

haydenm

Riding two abreast is perfectly legal on a straight road, as is walking slowly two abreast down the pavement but I'd happily move out of someone's way if I can. On some roads motorbikes can easily pass with oncoming traffic without bothering me, depends on the width of the road

trivial_poursuivant

HaydenM wrote:

Riding two abreast is perfectly legal on a straight road, as is walking slowly two abreast down the pavement but I'd happily move out of someone's way if I can. On some roads motorbikes can easily pass with oncoming traffic without bothering me, depends on the width of the road

In defence of the op, he did say one was swerving all over the lane, if the riders are two abreast and making it easy for overtaking vehicles to get past fine but if you feel the riders are being obstructive deliberately or otherwise I'm sure he has legitimate reason to be concerned. If he had attempted to overtake when the road looked suitable to do so but the cyclist swung out into his path you just know the blame is coming the way of the motorcyclist unjustly in this case. As I said in my previous comment some people are dicks no matter what mode of transport used. A dick riding a bike is still a dick and should not be automatically assumed to be in the right

mfin

Dorset Boy wrote:

I'd suggest that considering overtaking when there's oncoming traffic is pretty selfish, not to mention impatient.

Would the OP pass a horse with oncoming traffic, or say a 50cc scooter?

Mfin has a bee in his bonnet about all cyclists being incompetent on the road, but doesn't seem to understand that passing a shorter line of paired cyclists is usually a lot safer and quicker than passing a long line singled out.

Naa, I understand a line of paired cyclists not filing out, makes sense. Two people riding side by side and not quickly filing out when it would obviously help people get past if they did is the kind of behaviour that pisses drivers off for example.

pblakeney

Or, the driver behind could simply use the other lane as the OP has pointed out that he did.
Thread about nothing, but carry on...

Man Of Lard

Animal72 wrote:

I couldn't overtake as there were oncoming vehicles and not enough room for me to safely get past.

Would you have been able to pass safely if the outside cyclist had not been there? (you mention oncoming traffic - given the advice is "as much space as if you're overtaking a car" or 1.5m of clearance - seems unlikely to me but that's based on the roads I drive along (and cycle along)

animal72

Man Of Lard wrote:

Animal72 wrote:

I couldn't overtake as there were oncoming vehicles and not enough room for me to safely get past.

Would you have been able to pass safely if the outside cyclist had not been there? (you mention oncoming traffic - given the advice is "as much space as if you're overtaking a car" or 1.5m of clearance - seems unlikely to me but that's based on the roads I drive along (and cycle along)

Reasonable question. It was a wide road, as mentioned in my first post.

One bike, plenty of space to safely pass. In fact, I overtook a couple of bikes on today's commute on the same road.
Two bikes, probably, but it would depend on how far out they were, how consistent they were riding, and how much space the oncoming car gave me as I wouldn't put myself (or the cyclists) at risk unnecessarily.

bikes`n`guns

Riding 2 abreast becomes selfish when there are 3 riders.

DavidJB

We often ride 4 abreast, nothing wrong with that.

slowbike

Animal72 wrote:

Man Of Lard wrote:

Animal72 wrote:

I couldn't overtake as there were oncoming vehicles and not enough room for me to safely get past.

Would you have been able to pass safely if the outside cyclist had not been there? (you mention oncoming traffic - given the advice is "as much space as if you're overtaking a car" or 1.5m of clearance - seems unlikely to me but that's based on the roads I drive along (and cycle along)

Reasonable question. It was a wide road, as mentioned in my first post.

One bike, plenty of space to safely pass. In fact, I overtook a couple of bikes on today's commute on the same road.
Two bikes, probably, but it would depend on how far out they were, how consistent they were riding, and how much space the oncoming car gave me as I wouldn't put myself (or the cyclists) at risk unnecessarily.

It also depends on the traffic - a lone motorbike on a big empty B road can approach cyclists very quickly - they would have to be on constant surveillance to single out before the motorcyclist had to react to them.

it's a very subjective line on the "holding up traffic" - the more minor the road, the less I'm bothered about cars being held up as I don't believe they should be expecting to hurtle around minor roads like they're a major trunk road - that's not to say I want them held up - but I'd be less inclined to aid their passing so promptly.

Matthewfalle

Riding up local hill on a main road recently at the end of the working day, loads of traffic backed up doing about 7mph, so I overtake wondering what was going on.

Two bods in matching kit from a local informal organization who's members all like doing the same thing struggling up riding side by side with a nice bit of wobbling thrown in for good measure.

I tell them to get into single file as they holding everyone up, they grunted.

No wonder people hate cyclists.

Ride side by side when it's safe, hear any cars coming behind then pop into single file.

It's not rocket science.

slowbike

Matthewfalle wrote:

Ride side by side when it's safe, hear any cars coming behind then pop into single file.

It's not rocket science.

On a main road where going single file would enable vehicles to safely overtake - yes I agree - heck I've pulled into the side on a main road hill where I'm holding up a large vehicle.

But, progressing at a reasonable speed, 2 abreast on a country lane where there's enough room for a car to get past - or will be shortly - no - I'll stay where I am, thank you.

mfin

Slowbike wrote:

But, progressing at a reasonable speed, 2 abreast on a country lane where there's enough room for a car to get past - or will be shortly - no - I'll stay where I am, thank you.

And that, is why, drivers think cyclists are arrogant ****s.

You are sending them a message that they can wait. By filing out when you know they are approaching you are giving them the message that you don't want to put them out.

Thanks for pissing drivers off on our behalf.

(+1 Matthewfalle).

timothyw

I couldn't give a fuck if drivers think we're arrogant.

I already think they're arrogant for feeling the speedy completion of their journey is for some reason more important than the safety of ten of us on our own journey when it's just one of them in the car.

I already think they're arrogant for feeling they're entitled to park their car anywhere for free, regardless of what effect it has on the smooth flow of traffic - oh, the moans you hear that they had to pay x amount to park wherever. Imagine that instead of a car it was a ton of steel being dumped, to come back and collect later at some undetermined time - hardly unreasonable to expect to pay for the privilege.

What's worse, a couple of cyclists two abreast or someone parked creating a pinch point, arresting smooth flow of traffic for hours and hours? Both completely legal, for some reason you never hear people moan about the hundreds of parked cars blocking smooth flow of traffic on our roads.

Which is to not even start on the completely routine speed limit breaking from so many drivers - surely the height of arrogance to feel that they don't need to respect speed limits in place for everyone's safety?

Most amusing about this entire thread is the sour grapes below the surface of the original post - bit jealous perhaps that this chap was having a nice ride with his lady friend while you were on your way from work with no such prospect?

pblakeney

People? Tcht!
Idiots, the lot of 'em.

tootsie323

Here's a thought: if cyclists are taking up a whole lane, a vehicle passing - using the opposite lane - will be much closer to the outside cyclist than might generally be thought considerate.
On that basis, a driver might argue that when passing single-file cyclist(s), one may not need to use the opposite lane as there will be the same amount of space as given in the above scenario.
I could argue that the former might be deemed acceptable and the latter not, despite there being no difference in the space given.

pinno

I had one today who waited behind me until I got to a passing place. I pulled over and then he passed me only to come to a standstill at the side of the road, 25 yards before a T junction, not 150 yards after he passed. Wtf? Was it worth it?
I must say, most drivers around here are pretty considerate. I think it's because there's a lot of farm traffic and a wide tractor (they just get bigger and bigger) can hold you up on a narrow lane for a long time.

Drivers seem to aim for the gap. So whether you are in single file or 2 abreast, they will aim for the gap - regardless. In single file, I've noticed drivers go through the remaining space with oncoming cars, often without slowing down, leaving very little room. If you are 2 abreast, they almost have to slow down and go around you if there is on coming traffic. So riding in single file, isn't necessarily safer.

There's a GCN video on that somewhere...

veronese68

PBlakeney wrote:

People? Tcht!
Idiots, the lot of 'em.

Yep, and a few of them frequent Internet forums.

pblakeney

Veronese68 wrote:

PBlakeney wrote:

People? Tcht!
Idiots, the lot of 'em.

Yep, and a few of them frequent Internet forums.

That's where I encounter them the most.

mamba80

Slowbike wrote:

it's a very subjective line on the "holding up traffic" - the more minor the road, the less I'm bothered about cars being held up as I don't believe they should be expecting to hurtle around minor roads like they're a major trunk road - that's not to say I want them held up - but I'd be less inclined to aid their passing so promptly.

what i ve found is that some drivers, quite wrongly, will then get impatient and just force their way through, regardless of the danger to themselves or the cyclists, getting out of their way, when safe to do so, is just self interest.... no point being dead but in the right.
,

pblakeney

mamba80 wrote:

Slowbike wrote:

it's a very subjective line on the "holding up traffic" - the more minor the road, the less I'm bothered about cars being held up as I don't believe they should be expecting to hurtle around minor roads like they're a major trunk road - that's not to say I want them held up - but I'd be less inclined to aid their passing so promptly.

what i ve found is that some drivers, quite wrongly, will then get impatient and just force their way through, regardless of the danger to themselves or the cyclists, getting out of their way, when safe to do so, is just self interest.... no point being dead but in the right.
,

This is true but I have had "debates" with drivers when they have close passed when we have been single file.
The fact that the other lane was perfectly clear was irrelevant as they don't see why they should cross the white line to overtake cyclists who should be in the gutter. Idiots.

N0bodyOfTheGoat

When does riding side by side become selfish?

When a group of cyclists are going through an infinite blind bend.;)

Had a ridiculous scenario in early July in the New Forest. B road that was as good as pancake flat and straight as an arrow for ~0.5-0.75 of a mile, easily 5 metres or more wide. Numpty in van behind two of us decides to not overtake, using the blatantly clear opposite side of the road as far as the eye can see, with other motor traffic queueing behind him... Then jumps out of van, kicks off about two abreast being illegal and we were holding up other road users.

No, numpty, you were driving like a person who tries to argue a lot ( ). It was perfectly safe for us to be riding two abreast, any reasonable driver could see it was safe to pass us using the opposite side of the road and give us more than 1.5 metres space!

Sheepishly, he gets back in van and tailback of traffic all promptly pass us safely.

Chris.D

TimothyW wrote:

I couldn't give a fark if drivers think we're arrogant.

Pity you feel this way. Many people do care, because cyclists are the ones that come out on the losing (or dead) end of car conflicts. I'll think of you next time I have a truck mirror go less than a foot from my head when passed on a deserted road, perhaps out of anger from negative interactions with arrogant cyclists.

I too have stopped riding with clubs because of the traffic conflicts that ensue, and mostly ride solo or with 2 or 3 like minded friends. Some conflicts arise due to rookie mistakes, but I have so often heard experienced cyclists arrogantly state their right to use the road while riding four abreast on narrow back roads. Car conflict inevitably ensues and makes what should be an enjoyable outing quite stressful. I know on a solo outing, someone will look at me as one of "them", and it's a shame.

Motorists don't know, care or probably believe that many cyclists ride in the lane instead of on the other side of the white line to avoid getting flats. I never ride in the lane if I can avoid it, staying on the other side of the white line I probably get more flats... oh well. I'd rather get a flat than get run off the road or killed by a truck mirror.

Riding solo I've found most drivers to be quite polite, and I go out of my way to be polite in return. I always give a "thank you" wave to cars that had to slow down for me before passing, same for the ones that wave me through an intersection before they go. I stop at stop signs, use hand signals and try to ride predictably. People appreciate that, and I like to think I'm making things better for other cyclists. It works for me, makes my rides far more pleasant and I seem to have far less car conflict than other cyclists I know.

YMMV