[Closed] Giving cyclists too much room (wouldn't waiting be better)?

What they really want is cyclists to be in the gutter, out the way, ideally off the road entirely.

I agree with that.

I've heard drivers ending bike-related stories with 'and those idiots were riding two-abreast!!!!' on several occasions (this mostly being in Cornwall).

My opinion? If I want drivers to consider me and not behave like bellends then I should try to reciprocate... which is why I don't do two-abreast when riding with mates...

and those idiots were riding two-abreast!!!!

Not saying you should ride 2 abreast, I'm just not sure you pandering to their [i]current[/i] whim will necessarily help.

if these are the same people who want cyclists off the road entirely than they need re-educating* not placating.

*or if that fails possibly a punch** in the face
**not by me, I'm not even a keyboard warrior let alone a real life one.

The main problem I have when driving is two-breast on narrow country lanes HTF am i supposed to get past?

I do a lot of road riding (on the MTB) but even with friends we stay single file I'm sorry but two-breast on narrow country lanes is just being a bloody pain in the back side 👿

Haven't you seen the price of fuel now? No-one can afford to slow down then accelerate again anymore. Momentum is everything. What we really need is bigger wheels for cars.

Two abreast bikes is about the same width as one horse.

Funny how a motorist will wait for ages behind a horse, give it a wide, slow overtake but get the same "obstruction" caused by cyclists and they HAVE to get passed NOW and if they can't they'll give a good old blast of the horn and some abuse.

🙄

Two abreast bikes is about the same width as one horse.

From my experience, that's only the case if the horse is really, really fat.

I've only been road riding for a year or so but I do seem to get regularly 'buzzed' by motorists. Interestingly it tends to be in the same spots where cars try to overtake too close to me or the other car.

I've learnt now on those spots I pull out further into the carriageway, basically to make it bloody obvious there isn't space to attempt a silly overtake. 99% of the time this works, get the occasionally toot or gesture when I pull back in, but I would rather that than get squashed.

Riding in the gutter makes it more likely drivers will try to get past, whether there is space or not

The main problem I have when driving is two-breast on narrow country lanes HTF am i supposed to get past?

Because you can't physically fit past? In which case the only way to get past a single cyclist would be to pass unsafely close.

Cyclists are traffic too you know. If you want to get somewhere fast why don't you try a motorway instead?

which is why I don't do two-abreast when riding with mates...

So you go out with five mates. You're all on normal bikes, about 1.8 metres long:

[img] [/img]

Say, what 50cm between you if you are riding in a fairly tight group?

So (6x1.8) + (5x0.5) = 13.3 metre long obstacle to overtake.

If you all rode two abreast it'd be (3x1.8) + (2x0.5) = 6.4 metres

Which one is easier for them to overtake and less likely to result in them swinging into the middle of the group when they realise they haven't got room?

99% of the time this works, get the occasionally toot or gesture when I pull back in

Preempt that by doing a "thankyou" wave or thumbs up as you pull back in.

Which one is easier for them to overtake and less likely to result in them swinging into the middle of the group when they realise they haven't got room?

Interesting take, GS.

I'm thinking that single line is more likely to enable cars to pass without having to push seriously into the oncoming lane (mostly wide roads in my area), so the length might be an issue, but the breadth is more so.

Plus, two-abreast is a de facto statement of intent - 'Our position on this road is as valid as yours' - which might be true, but nurtures antagonism IMO.

Yeah and if the road is wide enough that a car can pass a single file rider [b]safely[/b] without having to leave the lane then yeah I'd completely agree in those circumstances it makes sense to ride single file (or move to single file when you hear a car behind).

But that brings up my earlier point of vagueness in the HC: if there are two or more lanes then shouldn't riding two abreast be actively encouraged?

Because you can't physically fit past? In which case the only way to get past a single cyclist would be to pass unsafely close.

You must live in a different part of the country to me; there's lots of roads I ride on where cars pass me safely on my own but would be blocked by 2 abreast.

That or me and my riding buddies are much fatter than you....ah, yes, that'll be it. 😀

This ^^^^.

Presuming that two-abreasters are (a) as focused as pro cyclists and (b) totally able to keep in tight formation without chatting and getting distracted, the obstacle might not be over wide.

But the reality is many two-abreasters are all over de place.

Single makes sense, people.

I genuinely think that in most cases passing a moving cyclist doesn't actually register as an [i]overtaking[/i] manoeuvre to motorists. Subconsciously they're merely driving past in the same way they drive past another parked vehicle. That, to me, is where most of the daft stuff comes from - they've largely 'zoned out' and haven't realised what they're actually doing. It's only when confronted by a group riding two-abreast (hopefully in good order) that the [i]overtaking[/i] aspect registers. I know this is a generalisation and it's obviously not true in all instances, but that's the way things appear to me.

About a month ago I was on a stretch of road that goes from 30 to NSL back to 30 again in a very short distance. When driving I never accelerate up to 60 as it's pointless. It's perhaps 600m.

Anyway - coming towards me is a couple of cyclists riding abreast being overtaken by a small Vauxhall combi van. The bloke driving was leaning across during the (slow) overtake hurling profanities at the cyclists and shaking his fist. He remained on the wrong side of the road for ages so he could have a proper rant and I'd started slowing as I wasn't sure he'd move in before I got to him.
He did eventually speed up and move in, but not before I'd crawled almost to a stop to give him room for his rant.
There was no signage on his van, otherwise I would have been ringing the number up and giving him a rant of my own....

Lately I've found the worst overtakers are older drivers (perhaps 55+) who barely move over and narrowly avoid hitting me.
The majority though are patient and overtake with plenty of room - they always get a wave & thumbs up as they pass, particularly if they have waited behind me due to traffic islands or oncoming cars.
Perhaps you shouldn't have to thank people for not crashing into you, but if it make that person feel that their consideration has been recognised, then hopefully they will be equally patient with the next cyclist they come across.

I always leave a metre of space because [url= http://www.amygillett.org.au/ ]A Metre Matters[/url]

Yep - see also the 3 feet please campaign.

Original US version which got the rule passed as law in several states:
http://www.3feetplease.com/

UK version:
http://3feetplease.org.uk/

[img] [/img]

I wonder whether the reason that people on forums have so many bad experiences with drivers ma be to do with speed. Most people on bikes are pootling at 5-10mph and, in steadily-moving traffic, are basically the same as stationary obstacle (relative to a car at 30-40mph). Whereas people who frequent forums are likely to ride a lot* and can clip along at 20mph and as a result are much harder to overtake safely.

Which one is easier for them to overtake and less likely to result in them swinging into the middle of the group when they realise they haven't got room?

Yep, definitely agree with this. Trying to get past a single-file line of 6 or 7 riders is sometimes impossible on narrow roads. If they're 2 or even 3-abreast then they take up no more space than a slow-moving car. Of course, the drivers just think you're being inconsiderate riding 2-abreast but in reality the opposite is true.

*OK, maybe not 😆

But the reality is many two-abreasters are all over de place

I doubt even the wobbliest of two-abreasters are significantly wider then say a big tractor and thresher, or a caravan.

IME many motorists will patiently sit behind a tractor till they can pass, but want past cyclists immediately.

Asking cyclists to be considerate and let cars past when they are safely able to do so is a perfectly reasonable request.

Asking cyclists to put their own safety at risk just so they don't hold up a car for twenty seconds isn't.

That's why blanket rules about this make no sense. Sometimes it is safer to ride two-abreast, sometimes it might be better to ride single file but take the primary, sometimes keeping hard left and letting them pass is best.

Above all safety should be the primary consideration, not convenience or "politeness".

My usual response to local-newspaper-types, when they start on about [i]"riding two-abreast is illegal in the highway code"[/i] is to say:

"Cyclists will only follow the ADVICE in rule 66 when they can rely on motorists following the advice in rule 163"

[img] [/img]

Whereas people who frequent forums are likely to ride a lot* and can clip along at 20mph and as a result are much harder to overtake safely.

How did it take 2 pages to get to the 'cyclists go too fast' excuse for crap overtaking?

Single makes sense, people.

and can clip along at 20mph and as a result are much harder to overtake safely.

The biggest problem I find when riding around on rural roads is blind bends. People do it all the time. There are occasions when I can't see round, so the driver behind me, sitting further back and to the right of the lane hasn't a hope in hell of seeing traffic approaching from the right hand bend in the other direction. But it seems they're happy to risk it because they MUST pass. It's like watching crack addicts search out their next hit.

GrahamS - I have seen that picture on here lots of times and still find it a bit confusing.

If, as it seems to show, cars need to give me that much room to overtake, and I am riding 2 abreast, then the road in the pic would not be wide enough to ever overtake giving the outside cyclist that much room.

Wish they would show a version of these Public Safety films nationally, ideally as compulsory viewing Clockwork Orange style:

(Not perfect but one of the best I've seen)

IME many motorists will patiently sit behind a tractor till they can pass, but want past cyclists immediately.

FFS, you are not 'in the way' you are using the road just like everyone else, you can't just expect cyclists to jump off the road just every time a car comes up behind them, and moving into the gutter just makes everything worse and less safe as well as perpetuating the idea that that's where cyclists should be

GrahamS - I have seen that picture on here lots of times and still find it a bit confusing.

Yep - another fine example of the Highway Code being to vague to be useful.

riding 2 abreast, then the road in the pic would not be wide enough to ever overtake giving the outside cyclist that much room.

Agreed.

I think a more reasonable proposition is to say that if cyclists are riding two abreast then the outside cyclist should ride where the outside wheels of a car would be.

Overtaking cars would need to give them "as much space as you would a car" (e.g. overtake by completely entering the next/opposite lane).

But sadly it is all too vague (deliberately so IMO) to decide what they actually mean.

There's a common sense angle though, surely?

Seems to me there's some righteous cyclists out there, who prefer to feel indignant about car drivers' behaviour than to ride in a way that's harmonious with other road users. The harmonious bit is hugely vague, of course. But IMO it involves (a) no shooting red lights or pavement jumping to avoid a 15 second delay, (b) no two-abreasting when the road is evidently busy and (c) no ****ing texting whilst in the saddle. 😯

The Sanity Assassin - Member

I genuinely think that in most cases passing a moving cyclist doesn't actually register as an overtaking manoeuvre to motorists.

This seems to nail it for me in much the same way as cars overtake parked cars irrespective of whether there is room without hitting oncoming traffic.

Seems to me there's some righteous cyclists out there

IMO there are two types of "righteous cyclist":

1: the one drivers [i]think[/i] we all are: who smugly regards every road user as wrong, who delights in winding up "cagers", and who will ride on a dangerous road or in the primary with 50 cars queued behind him/her just to "make a point".

2: the one that is actually much more common, who gets "righteous" about their right to use the public road safely without feeling bullied or threatened by other road users.

Actual 1's are quite rare.

The trouble is that drivers see someone in the primary and automatically think they are 1, when actually most of the time they are 2. And cyclists who are actually a 2 fear that they might look like a 1.

You must live in a different part of the country to me; there's lots of roads I ride on where cars pass me safely on my own but would be blocked by 2 abreast.

Well if that's the case, then singling out is reasonable, and actually safer as the road will be wide enough that a car can squeeze past 2 abreast if it decides to. The tone of the post I responded to suggested he was talking about narrower roads where he couldn't physically fit past 2 cyclists. And no, if you can't physically fit past 2 abreast cyclists then it's not safe to pass one.

I'm far from being a militant cyclist and will single out or give way to cars where it is safe and will help their progress, but a lot of drivers (and people on here 🙄 ) seem to think singling out will help them, where it won't or will make it more dangerous for the cyclists. One example I can think of where I wouldn't ride 2 abreast is a very wide road near me where a driver can safely overtake a single cyclist without crossing the central white line (to be honest the vast majority do actually cross the line as there is plenty of space for them to do so even with oncoming traffic, and I don't think I've ever actually had a close pass on that road which tells a tale for those who suggest restricting space helps).

I should point out as part of this discussion that once when riding 2 abreast with my sister we got stopped by the police who suggested we should single up. My sister explained carefully to the policeman why 2 abreast was actually safer on that road (where a driver couldn't pass a single cyclist safely with oncoming traffic, but could pass one dangerously) and the policeman went away agreeing with her - she can be very persuasive!

In the first post, the OP struggles to imagine what would happen if the two cars collide, my experience is there's a hell of a crunch, the overtaker swerving then going up the right hand banking, then 50ft down into the woods. The innocent motorist(in his car he's only owned for 2 days)get's thrown sideways across the road and into the opposite banking, and I get to brake so hard that I "stoppy" an inch from his front wheel, and gently topple onto his bonnet on my hands and knees. Innocent driver was a bit shaken, whilst we had to rescue a confused old chap because nobody else at the scene had headtorches to see in the darkness.An eventful evening, all up.

[img] [/img]
There was a recent case I think in NZ where someone overtook a line of cyclists - single file seems to have become a convention for avoiding too much conflict/annoyance. Half way past a car came round the corner and he pulled into the line of cyclists 🙁 groups are easier to pass like tractors lines on narrow/country roads are plane dangerous (cyclists, motorist & former driver of large agricultural vehicles) pulling in when you can is courteous hopping off into every gateway to let a car past is pointless.

Here's a thought for you, people are a bit thick. A lot of drivers aren't making the rational calculations people on here assume, they're not mentally engaged.

Try this some time. In a supermarket check-out queue or airport check-in, let a small gap develop in front of you, say three feet or so, invariably the person behind you will become agitated at the lack of movement to the point of nudging you with their trolley, steeping on the backs of your heels and so on.

It's bonkers, totally irrational, what slows things down is the bag check or check-out process and if people thought it through, they'd know that shoving their trolley into you isn't going to make any difference to the time they spend standing there.

I reckon a lot of people do the same thing on the road. They just feel a sort of basic need to feel they're progressing, they can't help themselves. Rational thought has nothing to do with it and trying to project that sort of reasoning process onto some motorists - and some cyclists - is a waste of time.

Then again as a nation we seem happy to spend billions on a completely pointless nuclear deterrent so rationality clearly isn't really our strong point... 😐

[edit - too impatient to post, pressed button twice, no hope for me]