https://www.telegraph.co.uk/cars/comment/together-moral-superiority-cyclists-has-got-stop/
What is it about the continued antipathy between car drivers and cyclists? A proposed update to Rule 66 of The Highway Code suggests that, on narrow roads, people cycling two abreast is by far the safest way to proceed.
That's all well and good, and I'm all for road safety whatever your preferred method of transport, but surely this proposal is likely to cause ire among car drivers who perceive that they are being baulked unnecessarily by apparently "road hogging" cyclists.
I'm coming at this from the viewpoint of keen cyclist and car driver, so naturally there are merits on both sides of the argument.
Do I want to avoid being killed while out for a leisurely cycle ride? You bet. The risks are relatively high as it is. But, if I'm in a car, do I want to be held up by a couple of Lycra-clad idiots impeding progress for apparently no reason? Surely that's just selfish.
Cyclists don't appear to help themselves by wearing predominantly black clothing
This issue is particularly pertinent at this time of year when things get a bit gloomy – and why is there this seemingly unwritten rule that the majority of cycling apparel is unremittingly black?
Whatever happened to the "see and be seen" maxim that's one of the cornerstones of road safety?
Surely it's the responsibility of cyclists to ensure that other road users are aware of their presence. Horse riders appear to take this to heart when using public roads, so why not those who prefer pedal power?
Of course, riding two abreast gives a brace of cyclists greater visibility. The proposals suggest that riding alongside instead of single file is the safest way to proceed unless it's considered safer to revert to line astern to allow drivers to overtake.
However, that argument fails to take into account the moral superiority of many cyclists, who seem to view anyone in a car as violating their inalienable right to proceed in any manner that they see fit, with apparently little regard for other road users.
Cyclists will always argue, and rightly so, that they are more vulnerable than a person seated in a motorised tin box, but my main concern is that such regulations will serve to further widen the divide between cyclists and drivers when we should all attempt to understand that we have an equal right to use the Queen's highway.
Unlike with the economic situation, as road users we really are all in this together so the sooner common sense and a bit (no, make that a lot) of consideration for others is applied, we're risking even greater divisions – along with the increased risk of serious injury or even death.
Cyclists will always argue, and rightly so, that they are more vulnerable than a person seated in a motorised tin box, but my main concern is that such regulations will serve to further widen the divide between cyclists and drivers when we should all attempt to understand that we have an equal right to use the Queen’s highway.
Except we don't. A driver can be banned, a cyclist, horse rider or pedestrian cannot.
Paul Hudson and Duncan Dollimore of Cycling UK interviewed together on R4 this morning.
Much more nuanced by Hudson than his article - possibly because he was faced by an opposing view and an interviewer.
Having said that, the article is ignorant and uninformed, pandering to the torygraph's readership.
Gonna get some 'Moral Superiority CC' club tops made who's in?
equal right to use the Queen’s highway.
Using that expression is peak Gammon.
But, if I’m in a car, do I want to be held up by a couple of Lycra-clad idiots
Pick a stereotype, anyone will do.
idiots impeding progress for apparently no reason?
Errr, that wouldn’t be for no reason, it would be so they are more visible and to lower the risk of being overtaken in an inappropriate place, therefore making it safer for everyone.
surely this proposal is likely to cause ire among car drivers who perceive that they are being baulked unnecessarily by apparently “road hogging” cyclists.
It strikes me that an article in a national newspaper about why cyclists may sometimes be better off riding 2 abreast would present a great opportunity to try to reshape drivers perception.
But apparently not, it's just the usual garbage full of logical inconsistencies.
What people always ignore is the fundamental asymmetry of cars vs cyclists and push a load of false equivalences.
Cyclists riding two a breast and causing inconvenience is not equivalent to being forced to ride in a less safe way on the road in case you upset drivers
Likewise, the argument on insurance for cyclists. Drivers kill cyclists, cyclists scratch cars. They aren't remotely equivalent.
Drivers worry about being inconvenienced by cyclist. Cyclists worry about being killed by drivers
"Drivers worry about being inconvenienced by cyclist. Cyclist worry about being killed by drivers"
I need this on a jersey
Car drivers drive two abreast even when they don't have any passengers the selfish bastards
Shorter version:
‘Now they want drivers to overtake people on bicycles CYCLISTS AKA LYCRA LOONIES DRESSED IN BLACK - with the same road safety requirements as horse or vehicle???? IT’S PC GONE MAD!!! (Where's my cheque?)
Have you noticed how nearly all anti-cyclist gammon rants seem to include a sentence along the lines of "as a keen cyclist myself".
FFS.
I was pleasantly surprised by how even handed that piece was... until he started going on about cyclists wearing black clothes and having a sense of moral superiority.
GTF
keen cyclist and car driver
aka non-cyclist and car nonce
“as a keen cyclist myself”.
and then
a couple of Lycra-clad idiots
I wonder just how keen he is.
Anyway two abreast is already in the Highway Code. Rule 66 currently says "never ride more than two abreast, and ride in single file on narrow or busy roads and when riding round bends", the modification is "ride in single file when drivers wish to overtake and it is safe to let them do so. When riding in larger groups on narrow lanes, it is sometimes safer to ride two abreast".
Hardly a dramatic change.
Hardly a dramatic change
Agreed, but the proposed wording is unhelpful.
“ride in single file when drivers wish to overtake" - that's every driver every time.
If it isn't, then how is the cyclist meant to understand the driver's wish? How can the driver communicate their wish to the cyclist? Sounding the horn? Excellent.
Cycling UK are proposing the wording be amended to:
[cyclists should] be considerate of the needs of other road users when riding with one another and in small or large groups. You can ride two abreast and it is often safer to do so, particularly in larger groups or when accompanying children or less experienced riders. Switch to single file if you consider it safer to allow drivers to overtake.
That seems a bit clearer to me and introducing the word 'considerate' is a good move IMO.
A keen Tory cyclist
Have you noticed how nearly all anti-cyclist gammon rants seem to include a sentence along the lines of “as a keen cyclist myself”.
You can see his enthusiasm for cycling from his twitter feed:
https://twitter.com/paul_hudson_dt
Switch to single file if you consider it safer to allow drivers to overtake.
Clear as mud to me. It implies that it’s always ‘safer to overtake’ cyclists when cyclists are in single file
Example 1: Nearly had a head-on with a Discovery a few weeks back on the A449. Discovery decided that he’d ‘overtake ‘ two cyclists on a shallow tree-lined S-bend
Cyclists were single file. Takes longer (both time and distance) for a vehicle to overtake two cycle-lengths than it does to overtake (approx) one cycle length*
* (ie as when riding two or more abreast)
Luckily I (approaching) spotted the cyclists and made an auto-calculation of the likelihood of just such a knobber lurking around the bend. I slowed, reached the bend/trees and there he was coming straight at us.
If the cyclists had been riding abreast would it have made any difference? Would he have waited for safe and legal manoeuvre? Or would he have played the same impatience game and gone up the centre not when it was safe but when he’d ‘had enough of waiting’. (i assume, why else would he overtake two cyclists on a bend)
Example 2: Long ‘fast’ bends can be deadly for cyclists if they aren’t as visible/tucked in the shadows of trees single file. I nearly lost a riding buddy behind me to that scenario. If I’d been riding two abreast with him we’d have presented more like a ‘vehicle’ to drivers approaching from behind. As it was they just hug the bend at speed and don’t see until (nearly, in this case) too late. I still 26 years later remember that looooooong earsplitting screech of car tyres. I was braced to hear Phil being splatted. The car fishtailed and just missed him.
A lucky day.
But back to the question? How is it ‘clear’?
“ride in single file when drivers wish to overtake”
"...and it is safe to let them do so".
That seems a bit clearer to me and introducing the word ‘considerate’ is a good move IMO.
I agree. Way too many on both the motorist and cyclist side of the 'divide' are too self absorbed.
I am very very lucky to have so many quiet roads to ride, and drive come to that. Plenty are narrow enough that overtaking a cyclist is pretty much impossible. When I'm riding I'll slow and roll through a passing place or gate entrance to let a car/van past and most drivers are considerate enough to wait far enough back for me to get to the next sensible spot and not be right up my chuff. It's when the consideration stops that the hassle starts. Rolls reversed last week I was driving on a similar road and came up behind a cyclist. She knew I was there but felt no need to help me pass her. After a couple of miles and half a dozen suitable roll through spots of what would have been 8 miles at 10-11 miles an hour I pulled over to admire the view rather than get frustrated. Plenty of drivers would have just gone for it at that point and squeezed her into a gutter. I don't know if she had had a bad experience earlier in the ride, had no perception of the width of the road she was on and that she was impossible to pass safely or was just of the belief that it was not her problem but consideration of others was not high on her priorities. If everyone plays nice and can trust others to do so too we kind of rub along. When bellendery is met with more bellendery (or even preconceived or anticipated bellendery - "they are just another arse in lycra so I'll act like a dick") it all goes wrong very quickly.
I caught the end of the discussion on R4 this morning - he was more even handed than he was in that piece.
I caught the end of the discussion on R4 this morning – he was more even handed than he was in that piece.
Depends usually on the Outrage Quota required by commissioning editor
Red top or purple top piece? Which annoying/hated (or both) minority/group are we going to threaten the electorate with this week?
‘And how can we keep them on simmer for the purpose of future outrage-bait?‘
Have to sell papers/collect ad-revenue somehow. smh
“…and it is safe to let them do so”.
drivers seems to have a problem with me deciding when it is safe for them to overtake. I ride close to centre of road into blind bends and blinds brows but many still seem to overtake anyway (sometimes are beeping and shouting) and they seem surprised when a car comes round the corner and they have to stop mid overtake. After many years of experiencing this I can only conclude that they really don't give a shit about potentially knocking off a cyclist.
“ride in single file when drivers wish to overtake”
This is literally the opposite of what you should be doing. It's easier to overtake cyclists two-abreast than in single file, the exception being if you think it's OK to squeeze past with 6" of clearance.
It implies that it’s always ‘safer to overtake’ cyclists when cyclists are in single file
I dont think it does. Since it says "if you consider" with it being the cyclist who decides and doesnt place it as the default approach.
Except we don’t. A driver can be banned, a cyclist, horse rider or pedestrian cannot.
A driver can kill a cyclist about a million times easier than the other way around. This more than 'evens things up'.
I still don't get it. Who would want killing someone on their conscience at all? Let alone if it was only because they couldn't be arsed to wait for 30 seconds.
Being 'held up' by a cyclist rarely entails waiting more than 60 seconds for a safe place to overtake. And if it does, the driver is most likely using some narrow, twisting rural lane as a rat run - and sometimes that may not pay off in making their journey five minutes shorter. Tough titty.
drivers seems to have a problem with me deciding when it is safe for them to overtake.
Which is why it is often necessary for us to take that decision for them - see also approaching traffic islands.
When I’m riding I’ll slow and roll through a passing place or gate entrance to let a car/van past
Me too but segment times seem to be of primary concern to many.
introducing the word ‘considerate’ is a good move
Yes and it cuts both ways. It's a word which is already in use in the Highway Code by the way.
If anyone hasn't seen the proposed wording changes they are here.
This is literally the opposite of what you should be doing. It’s easier to overtake cyclists two-abreast than in single file, the exception being if you think it’s OK to squeeze past with 6″ of clearance.
A respectful qualified disagreement.
I agree that this is often the case but there are roads (of the country lane, no line up the middle variety) where I'd be uncomfortable overtaking cyclists two abreast whilst giving the outer one of the two sufficient room even if the road was physically wide enough and straight enough that I had plenty of time.
This is literally the opposite of what you should be doing. It’s easier to overtake cyclists two-abreast than in single file, the exception being if you think it’s OK to squeeze past with 6″ of clearance.
I regard 'riding out a bit' as in everyone's best interests. Me, the impatient driver behind and the oncoming vehicle they may well end up clipping.
Why people can't see this says a lot about the entitlement/security of being in a piece of potentially lethal heavy machinery felt by a lot of people.
I always love the ‘don’t wear black’ statements. If you can’t see the lights, the bicycle or, god forbid, a massive ****ing horse then you simply shouldn’t be driving in the first place. I wear reflective gear (some of it in colour and some black/grey) to help with being seen, but the onus shouldn’t be on the cyclist. It should firmly be on the car driver.
What's with the racist thread title.?
How is it racist unless you’re a pig that can read and take offence at the word gammon?
I always love the ‘don’t wear black’ statements. If you can’t see the lights, the bicycle or, god forbid, a massive **** horse then you simply shouldn’t be driving in the first place. I wear reflective gear (some of it in colour and some black/grey) to help with being seen, but the onus shouldn’t be on the cyclist. It should firmly be on the car driver.
Well lit, fully reflective is not the majority. Lets not pretend that there isn't a sizeable proportion of cyclists that think appropriate lighting is a shitty £1 light that you get with a new bike, or that thin reflective strap under your armpit, is appropriate for a dark rainy winter evening in a twisty bumpy country road whilst you are being blinded by oncoming yummymummys in their SUVS. I myself go for the Christmas tree effect.
Oh I agree, but it doesn’t alter the fact the onus is still on the car driver to look out for other, more vulnerable, road users. Expecting people to dress like Christmas trees is passing the buck imo. I’ve also witnessed a couple of nasty instances whereby somebody lit up like Vegas has still been hit. The best thing to do in my experience is to be really aware of what’s happening around you. Plenty of checking and cautious yet assertive riding. Like riding two abreast!
Speaking as a keen motorist, cyclists very rarely cause me any delay in my car journeys. Occasionally I’ll need to overtake a cyclist to rejoin the same queue of cars I was in before encountering the cyclist, it doesn’t slow me down at all.
Whereas I’m always being held up by other bloody drivers. Why don’t they get in the gutter and out of my way?
I didn't think anyone had the "right" to use a motor vehicle on the public highway and that using one is a permitted activity that can only be carried out if (theoretically) strict conditions are met 🤔
Essentially totally unlike pedestrian, equestrian or cycle use in other words...
I always love the ‘don’t wear black’ statements. If you can’t see the lights, the bicycle or, god forbid, a massive **** horse then you simply shouldn’t be driving in the first place. I wear reflective gear (some of it in colour and some black/grey) to help with being seen, but the onus shouldn’t be on the cyclist. It should firmly be on the car driver.
I don't understand why any cyclist defends so keenly their right to wear black. I also don't understand why it's so fashionable.
Twice in recent weeks I've come across riders putting themselves in unnecccesary danger clad in all black. One in strong evening sun sitting low in the sky, with large trees at the side of the road. The dappled sun / shade effect made the rider really hard to see. My eyesight is perfect and I was doing about 45.
Next one was just one of those grey October days when the sun just can't be bothered and it's like dusk all day, with a bit of mizzle. Rider dressed in black Castelli, looking cool*.
It's not about drivers making a bad job of things, it's just a basic fact that matt black is harder to see. It's why SBS guys wear black and quarry guys wear high viz.
*looking like a bit of a tool really.
I don’t understand why any cyclist defends so keenly their right to wear black. I also don’t understand why it’s so fashionable.
Twice in recent weeks I’ve come across riders putting themselves in unnecccesary danger clad in all black. One in strong evening sun sitting low in the sky, with large trees at the side of the road. The dappled sun / shade effect made the rider really hard to see. My eyesight is perfect and I was doing about 45.
Next one was just one of those grey October days when the sun just can’t be bothered and it’s like dusk all day, with a bit of mizzle. Rider dressed in black Castelli, looking cool*.It’s not about drivers making a bad job of things, it’s just a basic fact that matt black is harder to see. It’s why SBS guys wear black and quarry guys wear high viz.
*looking like a bit of a tool really.
I get it - despite having black kit in my wardrobe. Rain jackets are all bright though with the logic that I'll be wearing them when it is proper grim.
OT but in the same manner - any car driver that drives a silver car in the rain on a motorway without their lights on really needs to sit in the driver's seat of a van or lorry and see what they look like in a wet wing mirror.
I don’t understand why any cyclist defends so keenly their right to wear black. I also don’t understand why it’s so fashionable.
I'm not defending it though, just stating that it can be used to take the onus off the car driver. Reflective clothing is best imo. I have a black and grey jacket that, when light hits it, sparkles more than Robert Pattinson in Twilight. I'm not dead and have never been in an accident on the bike. Wonder if there are any stats relating to cyclists clothing choice and incidents. To Google!
I don’t understand why any cyclist defends so keenly their right to wear black.
It's slimming?
A respectful qualified disagreement.
I agree that this is often the case but there are roads (of the country lane, no line up the middle variety) where I’d be uncomfortable overtaking cyclists two abreast whilst giving the outer one of the two sufficient room even if the road was physically wide enough and straight enough that I had plenty of time.
This. I mostly rode alone, frequently wearing black*, but if I happened to be riding with others, if I heard a car behind I’d alert the others and we’d ride single file - most of the country roads around here are a single track road with passing places, even B-roads can be narrow enough for cars to need to take care with vehicles coming from the opposite direction, it’s common sense and courtesy to allow other road users to be able to pass easily, and that includes overtaking a bunch of dawdling cyclists when on a bike and going faster than they are! Especially when they fill the entire width of the road, and act like panicked sheep when you come up behind and ring your bell, and they are all over the bloody place, not knowing how to just pull across to the left, rather wobbling about, braking, nearly falling off...
*But with reflective details a very bright lights.
I don’t understand why any cyclist defends so keenly their right to wear black. I also don’t understand why it’s so fashionable.
Do you drive a neon yellow car?
If a car driver's eyesight is so bad that he cannot see a black clad cyclist, then he should be either driving slower, or simply not driving at all.
Or be driving to his nearest castle to test his eyesight.
but surely this proposal is likely to cause ire among car drivers who perceive that they are being baulked unnecessarily by apparently “road hogging” cyclists.
Its almost like someone should write down a set of rules for how everyone cooperates / behaves on the roads? Oh... they did you say... Well they should update them whenever new factors become apparent to help people understand how to use modern roads safely... what was the opening paragraph of the article about again?
