[Closed] Why don't roadies pull over to let you past?

Bez » There have been five in the past couple of years

I'm surprised - can I just go on a slight derail and ask the circumstances?

Really? Which rule?

126.

Thats the chappie Bez

Stopping Distances. Drive at a speed that will allow you to stop well within the distance you can see to be clear. You should

leave enough space between you and the vehicle in front so that you can pull up safely if it suddenly slows down or stops. The safe rule is never to get closer than the overall stopping distance (see Typical Stopping Distances diagram, shown above)
allow at least a two-second gap between you and the vehicle in front on roads carrying faster-moving traffic and in tunnels where visibility is reduced. The gap should be at least doubled on wet roads and increased still further on icy roads

I notice it says 'drive'
Honestly TJ. I get it that you don't like riding in a group. There are clearly additional risk factors involved. But don't be an arse and make out that it is somehow illegal.

There are clearly risks involved in group riding. You can mitigate them in various ways by making sure that everyone knows what they are doing, but the risk is still there. It is up to you if you want to accept them

I suppose they are not putting anyone else at risk tho so morally acceptable a bit like drunk cycling

Edit - I didn't say it was illegal - I said it was aginst the highway code

Good point imnotverygood - it does say "drivers and riders ( meaning motorcycle riders)" not "all road users"

so like drink drive limits or speeding is this part of our road rules that does not apply to cyclists?

Edit - it also says at the top of the section "This section should be read by all drivers, motorcyclists, [b]cyclists[/b] and horse riders."

It's a bit tricky, because much of that section of the HC does only apply to motor vehicles, or have different requirements for pedal cycles, despite this not being explicit in the HC itself.

That said, (and I'm pontificating a little here so corrections are welcome) I would expect insurers or civil courts to treat riding into the back of someone to be treated similarly to driving into the back of someone.

I suppose they are not putting anyone else at risk tho so morally acceptable a bit like drunk cycling

Don't mention STW? ❓

I know that recognising the non-absolute nature of morals and their myriad relationships to other abstract social constructs is important, but I wasn't aware it was top of the list here.

When did you last hear it suggested that a motorist was giving other motorists "a bad name" even on here?

Ah I see. Yes. Well that's prejudice, all part of being a minority group isn't it? See racism/homophibia etc etc.

so like drink drive limits or speeding is this part of our road rules that does not apply to cyclists?

Indeed, hence my challenge. Just because it should be read by all users doesn't mean it applies equally to them. Elsewhere the HC acknowledges cycling two abreast and immediately behind another cyclist as being acceptable (unless you think that when it advises to single out it means you should drop way behind the other rider - which it makes no mention of).

But then the HC is a mess regarding cycling anyway, and in need of serious revision in some sections.

Interesting stuff.

I guess chaingangs are something I will never understand. Its one of the things people who don't cycle complain about a lot like RLJ and pavement riding. But unlike RLJ where I have been told off forcefully on here for doing it even when it inconvenienced no one and reduces the danger to me because it winds up car drivers chaingangs are ot critised by anyone.

I can see ( after this discussion) its probably not against the highway code and certainly not illegal but it seems to be treated differently by cyclists to RLJing and pavement riding despite irritating motyerists as much

I guess with chaingangs it's all about working together in perfect harmony, or something, probably feels pretty good knocking out the miles as efficiently as possible, having a bit of a craic with your mates, trying not to be the one suffering the most and stopping for a nice cup of tea and a bun.

I can see ( after this discussion) its probably not against the highway code and certainly not illegal but it seems to be treated differently by cyclists to RLJing and pavement riding despite irritating motyerists as much

In a chaingang what happens if someone gets a blowout or hits a pothole -how do you avoid taking down the riders around you?

The answer to this is that no one hits a pothole in the first place. OK that's overstating it, but such accidents will be rare and probably comparable with the accident rates for solo riders. The riders at the front of the group will be looking out for road hazards and will communicate them well in advance verbally and/or with hand signals to the riders behind, so that they will easily avoid the hazard. In a group, the riders at the front will be concentrating much more than when riding solo. You could think of it as being akin to the difference in concentration you give to riding on a red run at a trail centre compared with an empty gravel track.

I guess it's like any other potentially hazardous activity where people are taking part either as a team working together or as individuals who may be affected by the actions of other participants, e.g. Formula 1: they don't just behave as a collection of individuals, and instead they act and function as a group (think of it as being assimilated by the Borg).

Of course the other Rule that chaingangs regularly break is that of stopping at traffic lights. Usually if the first goes through, they all do. I guess there's an argument that someone mid-pack braking might end up causing a collision as those following pile into them but that just illustrates the fact that they are riding too close together.

Of course the other Rule that chaingangs regularly break is that of stopping at traffic lights. Usually if the first goes through, they all do. I guess there's an argument that someone mid-pack braking might end up causing a collision as those following pile into them but that just illustrates the fact that they are riding too close together.

* looks like that will be me then.

Checks outside.

Not Spain. 😥

Whether you say they are riding 3 abreast, 2.5 abreast, staggered, or whatever, they are certainly not riding two abreast. In fact they look like just the sort of rag bag, ill-disciplined muppets who give cyclists a bad name. If you look at the image, you will realise that they would struggle to single up quickly in the event of an oncoming road hazard, and they only would do so haphazardly, since they would waste precious time as they worked out betweeen themselves who should slow down and who should maintain speed/accelerate to create the necessary gaps for the outside riders to move in. In contrast a disciplined group that is riding two abreast will quickly create gaps between the inside riders for the outside riders to slot in alternately.

LOL, Bloody hell, It wasn't meant to be taken literally! It's just an example of how a group of riders riding together is safer and makes passing significantly easier than singling out.

I am moved to anecdote (may have told this before).
Group of 15 approaching a pedestrian crossing. Light goes changes just as first pair arrives, neither they nor the second pair could've stopped. 3rd & 4th probably could, but it would have been entertaining. 5th, ,6th & 7th pairs definitely could have stopped but group momentum kept them going. Your truly as tail end charlie stopped, because I am that kinda guy. Taxi driver pulls up alongside me, but in order to yell through his window at me goes right through the white line onto the crossing. He says " Well done for stopping! All those others didn't yadda yadda yadda" Clearly not actually congratulating me at all. I was about to point out that he had just broken the same law that he was complaining about my club-mates breaking when the elderly lady crossing the road banged on his bonnet and shrieked. " You should stop behind the white line. Typical Taxis!"
His face was a picture.

Guys - i am not just trying to be argumentative here - its something I am interested in and want to understand a bit more and this thread has helped that so thanks for that chaps
But

EDIT Just because drivers get upset by it doesn't mean that it is wrong. Lots of drivers get upset by people not cycling on cyclepaths for example, or dare I say it: cyclists not wearing helmets. Feel free to adjust your behaviour according to the misconceptions of the ignorant.

I have been berated on here for admitting I RLJ on occasion inconveniencing no one and improving my safety. OK thats breaking the law but the main reason I was berated was for irritating car drivers.

LOL @imnotverygood

Guys - I am not just trying to be argumentative here - its something I am interested in and want to understand a bit more and this thread has helped that so thanks for that chaps

[url=

is why#. We do it properly, train riders and obey the HC. That includes stopping at red lights.

#Can't embed videos, so it's a FB link.

[quote=tjagain ]I have been berated on here for admitting I RLJ on occasion inconveniencing no one and improving my safety. OK thats breaking the law but the main reason I was berated was for irritating car drivers.

You're making the mistake of thinking we're homogeneous on here. The people berating you for that are also likely to criticise people riding 2 abreast in groups (and not singling out on the occasions the HC nonsensically suggests*)

I have to admit I possibly have in the past criticised people (maybe even you) for RLJ, but I've realised such a position is hypocritical. I don't tend to do it myself, but then I don't go through that many traffic lights and it doesn't tend to be an issue (and I don't count going through lights which don't trip for cyclists - they're faulty, so it doesn't count). I daresay if I lived in London I would - I'm not so sure about Edinburgh, but I've mainly cycled there on a Sunday and not since 2008 I think so things may have changed. Certainly "it annoys motorists" is a totally invalid reason for not doing something, and legally the law breaking is exactly the same as a car crossing the ASL which I see almost every day.

*my sister is probably more [s]argumentative[/s][s]stubborn[/s] determined than me - was out riding with her once, riding two abreast when we were stopped by a policeman. She proceeded to explain to him why the HC was wrong and he genuinely went away better educated and agreeing with us.

I'm with you OP, just plain old bad manners innit.