[Closed] Riding two abreast on a two-lane road: yay or nay? (video)

If I was riding that road on my own I'd be in the "L" position which GrahamS/TJ refer to. If I was "with company" I'd probably be riding two abreast, and in my opinion that is the safer option (more visible, shorter over take for following traffic, and forces traffic to make a "safe" overtake not a squeeze through). Not only were they technically in the right, I think they were actually doing the sensible thing.

However if I ever feel the need to film my riding for "evidence" then I'll probably stop riding on the road! That said, rather than put it on Youtube I might have been inclined to let the local road policing unit decide who actually committed an offence? The people riding legally or the driver behind an aggressive overtake who then walks into the road to stop and shout at two cyclists... ...his number plate is clearly visible.

*Jeremy sits back and wonders why the rear of his tandem is always empty*

There is no reason to hold up traffic and cause drivers to be frustrated, to do so is just plain shitty!

Yes they may have the law on thier sides but the law as it stands is a whimsical farce that only slaves to idiocy would adhere too!

If a lot of cyclists acted in this way our roads could very quickly become grid locked!

To cause others distress or act in a way that is detrimental to thier quality of lives is wrong, anyone that is able to justify blatant manipulations of the law in certain circumstances, whereby for no good reason others lose moments of thier lives, is an asshole plain and simple.

Just out of curiosity and for future reference, If I wanted to pull in front of these cyclists at a safe distance and then slow down in front of them, for example to test out my brakes functionality, would that be legal?

Riding two abreast is legal. According to The Highway Code, [b]cyclists should "never ride more than two abreast, and ride in single file where the road narrows or on the approach to a bend".[/b]

Source http://www.bikeradar.com/fitness/article/technique-road-positioning-197/

so the fact you can't actually see the roundabout you're talking about for the majority of the clip also confirms you're in the wrong,

There are red triangle warning signs on both sides of the road, a big roundabout directional sign plus multiple SLOWs written on the roads with accompanying speed lines.

You might not be able to "actually see the roundabout" in the clip, but if you don't know it is coming up then you shouldn't be on the road (on a bike OR in a car).

he wouldn't have made the angry swerve, if you those idiots had just ridden single file an arms length from the kerb.

some people don't get it do they. If they had been riding single file in a good safe road position the van would still have had to move into the overtaking lane in exactly the same manner.

I'm in the nay camp, the main reason why people ride two abreast is to chat, not a safe thing to do in my book.

Why isn't chatting a safe thing to do? Don't people in cars get to sit two abreast chatting?

some people don't get it do they. If they had been riding single file in a good safe road position the van would not have had to move into the overtaking lane in the same manner.

Why isn't chatting a safe thing to do? Don't people in cars get to sit two abreast chatting?

awesome post. there are so many things that are good about it, it's difficult to know where to begin the praise.

According to The Highway Code, cyclists should "never ride more than two abreast, and ride in single file where the road narrows or on the approach to a bend".

Occasionally the HC is wrong - I know the CTC tried to get that advice removed in the most recent update. For reasons being argued above (just because TJ is arguing doesn't mean he's wrong), singling out in those situations just encourages drivers to overtake unsafely. Just to use the example of one which isn't the case for the video being discussed, try actually thinking about that advice - what is the benefit to anybody of singling out before a bend?

some people don't get it do they. If they had been riding single file in a good safe road position the van would [s]not[/s] still have had to move into the overtaking lane in the same manner in order to give them enough room.

some people don't get it do they. If they had been riding single file in a good safe road position the van would not have had to move into the overtaking lane in the same manner.

awesome post. there are so many things that are good about it, it's difficult to know where to begin the praise.

*Blushes* *Flutters eyelashes*

some people don't get it do they. If they had been riding single file in a good safe road position the van would not have had to move into the overtaking lane in the same manner.

However, if they were riding single file, its likely that angry WVM would have squeezed past with just inches to spare putting them in more danger.

There seem to be far too many angry and inconsiderate and impatient motorists about these days, and it seems to be getting worse.

Mrs KFP was driving at 30mph in a 30 mph limit past our local school the other day and WVM was tailgating and swerving all over the road to overtake. Its not a problem confined to cycling any more. And have you ever tried driving at 20 mph in a 20 mph limit? Its impossible. You'd get the same aggravation as the cyclists here.

Some people just shouldnt be driving a vehicle, they have serious anger problems.

i'd love to show this thread to the car drivers that hate cyclists, they would realise that we are not all road hogging morons who seem determined to make life difficult for other road users at every turn and we don't all think alike.

Exactly, it's not about right or wrong, we all know drivers get wound up, it's about safety, and common sense. Avoid confrontation, don't look for it.

If you are looking for common sense you've come to the wrong place.

+1 btw

Obviously lots of people seem to think these guys (and their supporters) are just being pedantic on an obscure point of law or being [i]"technically"[/i] right.

But legality (or pedantry) isn't really the point.

IMO they are riding in the safest possible way, taking the primary, well out from the kerb, obvious and visible, and in a position that encourages (most) others to pass them safely using the other lane.

I can't understand why others think it is safer to ride in the gutter and allow cars to squeeze past in the same lane.

Look at that still frame I posted earlier - there just isn't room in one lane for a bike in a safe secondary position (say arms length from the kerb as some suggested), a [i]reasonable[/i] clearance, plus a van.

Reasonable clearance:

[img] [/img]

[img] [/img]

it's about safety, and common sense.

On that we agree!

i'd love to show this thread to the car drivers that hate cyclists, they would realise that [s]we are not all road hogging morons who seem determined to make life difficult for other road users at every turn[/s] some of us are quite happy to ride in the gutter so that WVM doesn't have to go to the trouble of moving that awkward steering wheel

When the title said a two lane road, I was assuming one lane in either direction, in wich case it's courteous to go in single file so cars can pass - a road like this, when traffic is flowing freely, I'm amazed that it's even a question. Of course it's both right and legal that they were riding side by side.

A side point as well - pedestrians, horse riders and cyclists have a legal right to use the roads. Drivers only do so under license - drivers have less right to be on the road, not more.

i think this thread goes a long way to indicate what is wrong with cycling on the roads. if we, as a bunch of cyclists, have absolutely no consensus then how, or why, do we expect car drivers (and wvm) to know what to expect of us.

I hate to say it but I am more and more in favour of [s]compulsory[/s] more widespread cycle training.

My words to the van driver - "Are you the f*in police?" not "sorry" that's for sure.

Or... "seeing as you've so kindly stopped us... can we check your tyres and the general road worthiness of your vehicle?"

Surely the appropriate action when the driver's walking up the middle of the road towards you is to wait until there's a car coming up behind you wanting to overtake and then pull over quickly into the layby so that the road is now clear for the driver to continue in the left lane?

post deleted to stop myself looking like a dick...apologies aracer 😳

post deleted because everyone else is a dick 😀

post deleted to stop me also looking like a dick (I manage that well enough anyway without responding to posts others have deleted).

doh!

I would say riding two a breast can make overtaking much more difficult on a narrow country road for drivers.

But in that case there is not enough room for cyclist/car/car so it doesnt make any difference if they ride two a breast in fact it might be safer, as there is no chance of two cars trying to over take you at once.

And if there was only one cyclist they'd be best taking up the whole lane anyhow.

i think we've all learnt a valuable lesson here.

Perhaps all is needed is common sense all round? And in this case, I am not sure anyone is showing much.

I sympathise with the CTC view and adopt that idea myself - ie, make the car (legally) go round you. But there are occassions eg, a fast moving dual carriage way, where this merely puts the cyclist in more danger. Far better and safer to slip back into single file in that case. IMHO of course!!

its all your fault prawn, with your sneaky non quotation editing skills....

theprawn - Member
some people don't get it do they. If they had been riding single file in a good safe road position the van would not have had to move into the overtaking lane in the same manner.

For the drivers in the inside lane to overtake safely had those riders been single file, they would have to move so far over into the outside lane that other cars would be unable to pass them in that lane anyway.....if the drivers overtook the cyclist by squeezing past and staying in the same lane entirely, that would not be a safe overtake.

People don't seem to have the same rage for horse riders, do they? But a horse takes up much more width on the road, generally moves slower than a cyclist and you have to overtake at a far lower speed to avoid it going completely mental.
I don't understand why this is the case. Cyclists get shouted at, whereas in general horse riders seem to get a smile and a wave. Perhaps it's the knee high boots, jodhpurs & riding crop??

its all your fault prawn, with your sneaky non quotation editing skills...

in your face. 8)

i think we've all learnt a valuable lesson here.

Yes - and theprawn is the only one who still looks like a <connection terminated>

sorry, have i upset you?

I just thought we were all in this together

i have no idea what that means

They were legally right and the van driver was in the wrong confronting them

I regularly ride two abreast however on a road like that i would not ride two abreast going at the speed they were going. They look as if they are pootling along about 12mph or maybe less...it might be legally right but if it was me i'd feel i was being inconsiderate to other road users.

Going by what is said the guy on the left is obviously not particularly comfortable with the situation but the one with the camera is. IMO there is a tendency for [i]some[/i] helmet camera wearing commuters to ride or act in a way that makes them more prone to get a reaction. It probably isn't that they do it for youtube hits, it is as if they think having a camera provides a magic bubble that gives them more protection.

if it was me i'd feel i was being inconsiderate to other road users.

Another common theme.

Is it not better to put everyone's safety first, even if it means being "inconsiderate" and "selfish" by forcing other roads users to turn their steering wheel?

I'd rather be inconsiderate than dead.

GrahamS - your profile says that you like having net arguments, so I can't work out how seriously you views are here and how they link to the flashing lights thread. In the latter, you debate with TJ about the need to speed up if in an awkward situation in contrast to TJ's argument that he never lets himself get into the situation in the first place. So I am trying to see if you are being consistent here. On the one hand, you are, but equally I think the point the HC makes is that at times (ie fast, busy dual carriage ways) riding two abreast could be more dangerous. In this case, I think you are in danger of being in the car/lorry up your bumper scenario but without the ability to step on the gas.

I agree with your final point above - but what type of riding is really inconsiderate?

if you rode like that in london you probably would be inconsiderate and soon after dead.

This place is really **** depressing at times.

The white van man is cleary an agressive dickhead why the hell would anyone on a cycling forum try and defend his position.

As for it being annoying so what? Its not like the roads are full of virtuos experts who never annoy anyone else.

Tractors, buses, old ladies driving too slowly, people who don't indicate, people who hog the middle lane, people who hog the outside lane. People who drive small diesel hatchbacks etc.

Van driver needs to loose some weight and aggression, taking up cycling will help.

above is a video of a cyclist beng overtaken on a twisty road with a 90 degree bend, and double white lines, the camera is rear facing.

When it's busy I hug the kerb as much as possible so that if someone doesn't see me at all or is changing the CD or texting or something they will just blast past me and I'll end up with ruffled hair rather than splatted across their windscreen.

Of course if it's really narrow and there really is no room for even a narrow pass then I do pull out.

teamhurtmore - its not a fast busy duel carriageway - its a 30 mph limit

There really is a huge need for training for cyclists isn't there - I cannot believer the number of folk who want to ride in the gutter and who think bikes have to get out of the way of cars.

You are safer riding out in the road to make cars overtake you properly riding in the gutter gets you killed

Blimey TJ - for a change I am agreeing with you and you pick me up on a minor technicality. I will take your word on the 30mph as I can't see the sign. But visually, the cars (eg the audi) seem to be going faster than that.

In the interests of YTube legal enforcement, I assume that the police have been informed about the van and the dangerous driving?

C4 PXX

teamhurtmore

Sorry - I thought it a pertinent point. As for signs - no signs+ streetlamps = 30 mph limit.

yes all the vehicles appear to be speeding.

Bottom line - if you are going to do something on the road that'll upset/annoy other road-users you really need to:
1 be driving something huge (lorry), or,
2 be able to scarper (motorcycle), or
2 be prepared to dual it out

TJ - you are correct, I should know that!

br was point 3 (2) intended to be a joke/wordplay ?

I'm with TJ on this one - I'd be riding either two abreast or with a large enough gap between myself and the kerb to either prevent cars overtaking or squeezing by and forcing me into the kerb. A number of incidents whilst commuting where car drivers have attempted to squeeze past and taken evasive action whilst alongside (think flecha / hoogerland in the tdf but at slower speed) have made me realise it's far better to take a pro-active road position than to allow yourself to be treated as a 2nd class citizen on the road.

i think this thread goes a long way to indicate what is wrong with cycling on the roads. if we, as a bunch of cyclists, have absolutely no consensus then how, or why, do we expect car drivers (and wvm) to know what to expect of us.

I think what this shows is that there are a lot of fat middleclass Audi driving IT consultants who have bought a mountain bike as a life style accessory and wouldn't dream of actually riding a bike on the road.

GrahamS - your profile says that you like having net arguments...

Oh No it doesn't.

So I am trying to see if you are being consistent here.

When was that ever a requirement of the forum? 😀

I think I am though. You never really have the option to [i]"accelerate out of trouble"[/i] on a bike in fast traffic (well I don't anyway!), but if you take a primary position then at least you are clearly visible and have escape route to the left and right.

If you ride at the kerb you are less visible and have no escape routes (unless your sideways bunny hop skills are up to it).

I think the point the HC makes is that at times (ie fast, busy dual carriage ways) riding two abreast could be more dangerous.

I'm not advocating riding two abreast ALL the time, but I think it was perfectly reasonable to do here.

As TJ points out it's not a fast dual carriageway, traffic is slowing as they are approaching a roundabout and there are SLOW signs on the road. Traffic is relatively heavy so it would be all too easy for a driver to not notice a cyclist in the gutter and clip him as he goes past.

I think what this shows is that there are a lot of fat middleclass Audi driving IT consultants who have bought a mountain bike as a life style accessory and wouldn't dream of actually riding a bike on the road.

WRONG! It's a Ford Focus actually!

I despair for the future of cycling on the highway in this country when even [i]bike riders[/i] on a cycling website seem to believe that the motorised vehicle is king and that cyclists should be submissive and get out of their way. What really is needed is for drivers to be made more aware that they share the highway with other users that may be moving more slowly.
The drivers of the vehicles coming up behind the two cyclists in this instance should be competent enough to see them, to slow down as necessary, indicate to move past them and pull out safely. Drivers in the outside lane should be competent enough to see the cyclists, take note of vehicles in the inside lane that will need to pull out to pass the cyclists, and give safe space to those vehicles to allow them to pass safely. The onus is on the drivers to successfully perform these tasks. At no point is there any responsibity on the cyclists to make any manouvres beyond positively maintaining their same line [edit]AND NOT[/edit!] making any unpredictable changes of direction. IMO.

Proper road positioning can be summed up in the following points made by the cycling expert John Franklin:

“Increase your margin of safety … by riding where you can obtain the best view, where you can best be seen by others and your movements predicted.”

“Good road positioning is not about keeping you out of the path of other traffic as much as possible. Contrary to popular belief, this is not necessarily the best way to maximise safety.”

In certain situations it may be safer to use all the space that your side of the road or lane allows, i.e. take a position in the centre of the lane or your side of the road. This may be necessary if there is not enough room for cars to overtake you without forcing you too close to parked cars or the side of the road.

You should also take all of your lane when approaching a junction where it might be unsafe for a vehicle to be next to you or to come alongside you (for instance where it might turn across the front of you - “cutting you up”)

Ok Graham - I agree and you are consistent here (just!!). In the context, WVM is the one who is most in the wrong. Even Clarkson would call him "a c@ck." Then again....?

This partly some of my problems with slavish adherence to the concept of primary and secondary positions.
[url] http://grumpycycling.blogspot.com/2011/11/primary-and-secondary.html [/url]

BTW is there any evidence that it's actually safer?

Ian - I take your point taht slavish adherence to any rules is poor.

but in both of those example he would have prevented the dodgy overtake by being further out into the road - the first one I would certainly have been in a wide position so the car could not have passed on the corner ( perhaps have gone into the kerb and coasted for a few moments to let the car past when its was safe to do so between the two corners) and the second one again being right out in the lane further would prevent the dodgy overtake.

Being nest to the kerb would have put him in more danger in both those situations IMO

One of the key things IMO is to obviously let cars thru when its safe. Coast, go further left, look at them and wave 'em thru

I think what this shows is that there are a lot of fat middleclass Audi driving IT consultants who have bought a mountain bike as a life style accessory and wouldn't dream of actually riding a bike on the road.

That's ok though.

After all, this forum is call [b]Singletrack World[/b]

Not [b]Single Carraigeway World[/B] ??

Agree with the point in that blog that most drivers have absolutely no idea why you'd ever take the primary and may assume you're doing it just to wind them up.

See also the short article here: [url= http://www.citycycling.co.uk/Issue8/Purpose.html ]Doing It On Purpose (.citycycling, issue 8 )[/url]

Perhaps some education needed here? Maybe some adverts funded by the road safety charities? Perhaps they could explain the realities of "road tax" while they are at it. 😀

By the way, in the US [url= http://www.3feetplease.com/advocacy ]many states have a law that says motorists must give at least 3 feet[/url] when passing cyclists.

The left hand lane on that road is not wide enough for the van to pass a single cyclist safely* without the need for the van to cross into the right hand lane.

(* taking either a single cyclist's position or safe passing distance into account)

Therefore to the van driver, there should be no material difference between the cyclists being single file or two abreast. He clearly has anger issues triggered in this case by his incorrect belief that his progress is being hindered by people flouting the law. He needs more love in his life.

On a road ride with someone else on that road there are probably two reasons that would make me ride single file rather than two abreast - either we were riding slowly (<16/17mph) or if the traffic was exceptionally busy.

The first is simply because a higher speed differential on that particular road would make me prefer to be slightly further away from the white line than if I was doing 20-25 and the second just makes you appear more considerate towards other road users, even if - by adopting a safe position a good distance from the gutter - you aren't actually making it any easier for vehicles to pass you safely. All about perceptions.

If the guys in the video were single file in a safe position, chances are the van would still have aggressively swerved past them but far less likely the driver would have stopped to remonstrate with them.

All that said, if I was camera guy I'd have sped up and cracked a water bottle off the fat dick's head.

Unfortunately drivers (including to a greater or lesser extent me and everyone I've driven with) end up finding it difficult to 'feel' the vulnerability of the cyclist.

I've stopped regularly riding on busy roads, because there were very few where I didn't feel like I nearly died.

Even a couple of local non-busy roads seem to encourage very dangerous driving by a few (not necessarily idiots - just people who forget there could be a cycle around every corner or misjudge speed, etc).

Currently, I'm not sure there is a happy medium to be struck between car drivers and other road users.

As a cyclist who feels that vulnerability and who often rides with his sons, I'm definitely on the side of the cyclist. If there's any hope for successfully sharing roads, car drivers need educating about things like:
Planning ahead to cope with delays
Realise that taking a few risks doesn't actually save any overall time, but does cost lives.
How deadly these machines can be.
How vulnerable other road users really are.

I just feel like arguing about what road position these cyclists are in, is completely missing the point.

[i]br was point 3 (2) intended to be a joke/wordplay ? [/i]

Ah, thought I'd get away with it 🙂

richmtb - Member
This place is really **** depressing at times.

Whether it's about cars or bikes; Road threads seem to be the one's to avoid!

One of the key things IMO is to obviously let cars thru when its safe. Coast, go further left, look at them and wave 'em thru

With you 100% there.

maybe you shouldn't be alongside

66% of the people featured in the video thought the guy with the camera was probably in the wrong place.

66% of the people featured in the video thought the guy with the camera was probably in the wrong place.

Perhaps only 34% are experienced road cyclists?

Thread synopsis?

I watched the video. Thought all concerned were clueless eejits. Van driver for being a moron, cyclists for not telling the van driver that he was being a moron.

Van driver for being a moron, cyclists for not telling the van driver that he was being a moron.

😆 Yep - the only thing they did wrong was apologise - but he was a big lad and maybe they didn't want to argue in the middle of the road in case they "caused traffic".

66% of the people featured in the video thought the guy with the camera was probably in the wrong place

Which is worrying (although not altogether surprising). At least 50% of your 66% would have had to pass a test to be on the road and that is the most worrying part 😯

DezB hits the nail on the head as always.

i just wanted to make sure that in true stw tradition after 4 pages of bickering no one has actually changed their original position?

the internet wins again.

How much more interesting would forum discussions be if we all just agreed with each other all the time on everything? 😀

Just because someone is legally allowed to do something, doesn't make it best practice. Legally, any resident of Chester is allowed to shoot a Welshman with an arrow if he is within the city walls on a Sunday, but that doesn't make it sensible or advisable to do so.

No one is suggesting they should ride in the gutter and let traffic bully them but trundling along two abreast at a snails pace achieves one thing only: pissing off drivers.

Yes, they're legally entitled to trundle along two abreast, but as cyclists we need to be a bit smarter about how we present ourselves to drivers. From the original video, all we have is a bunch of pissed off drivers that hate cyclists even more.

How about the cyclists adopt the primary position, drivers still have to enter the other lane to safely overtake, but most importantly, psychologically the drivers won't hate the cyclists as much because despite having to make essentially the same overtaking move had they been riding two abreast, the drivers won't perceive the cyclists to be hogging the piece of tarmac the driver thinks they have exclusive right to use.

liked the pic of the bus witn the 1.5m poster on it, then disappointed to see not from UK

think the idea that it is illegal for cyclists to ride two abreast is pretty common and is used by those who already should be having anger management to have a go at cyclists

dual carriageway near us (penistone road sheffield) is 30mph limit but 40-45mph reality - lanes are in my opinion too narrow for vehicles to pass (single) cyclists without moving a couple of feet into outside lane - this regularly provokes furious horn honking and gestures by those choosing to drive a car length from vehicle in front and ignore presence of cyclist and my indications

Is riding two abreast legal?

Yes

As a cyclist, do I think that it's inconsiderate?

Depends on the circumstances. For example riding two abreast on a busy single carraiageway A road is something I would say is inconsiderate. I've seen two teenage girls on horses cause a 1/2 mile tailback doing exactly this. While the entitlement to do this might be protected by law, it's hardly applying due consideration for everyone else is it?

Ok they are "in the right" but as people has said is it worth it? but with a double lane I prob be there as well if riding with someone. but maybe go back to single riding if we start coursing a hold up.

But as Tj has asked at the start, "where would you be riding"

TJ said
"According to standard defensive riding techniques one should adopt the primary position - occupy your lane. there is not enough room there for two cars and a bike so you adpopt ther oad positioning that forces cars to overtake properly so as not to get squeezed into the edge and also to give you an escape route if required"

Sorry TJ going have to disagre, the Primary postion is more used when in slower moving traffic where you can keep up and it also help stop cars over taking and taking up that half a car lenght that is in front of you.

If I was on my own I be in the secondary postion. (about .5 meter from the edge) along that road and the road been clear and fast moving traffic.

"Because the primary riding postion can result in some inconvenience to following drivers, it is reasonable to ride further to the left when this could help others, [i]so long as your own saety is not thereby impaired[/i]. At these times you should adapt the [b]secondary riding position[/b]

This is also from the book Cycle craft by John Franklin.

(*note i have not read all 4 fourm pages.)

If you see someone you perceive to be driving like an arsehole you think "drivers are arseholes"

Similarly, if someone sees a cyclist cycling like an arsehole in their opinion, they think "cyclists are arseholes"

How about the cyclists adopt the primary position, drivers [s]still have to[/s] don't bother to enter the other lane to safely overtake