if it's a queue of following vehicles, anyone behind the first vehicle is going to come across you very suddenly and unexpectedly if the first vehicle isn't forced to slow down/indicate.
Yeah I agree. Queues would be in my "If I'm reasonably confident that the vehicles behind are probably aware of my presence" category.
Move me to the Grey
I think [i][u]most[/u][/i] people would be sensible enough to agree you can't make absolute statements. 🙂 If it helps then just offer your opinion on riding two-abreast on that particular stretch of road and traffic conditions.
druidh: shall I put you down as a FOR?
One argument appears to be that in moving to the right you then are not in the driver's peripheral vision
So if you are "in the gutter" - 50cm out...then move to say 2m out in a 4m wide lane...and a car driver's eyes are say 6m behind you...
The angle you would previously been at to him was < 15 degrees, that's 2.5 minutes on a clock face.
Is anyone seriously arguing that that is in a driver's peripheral vision? Seems to me to be a load of bunkum created to shore up the roadcraft argument (which I don't entirely disagree with, I just don't think it has to apply quite as universally as others do).
Yes that helps enormously Graham, just watched it again, keep me in the against 🙂
im all for riding 2up on a dual. i avoid them like the plague but if i have to go down one ill always pull alongside my mate to make cars act in a safe and legal manner.
Remember this is a 30 mph limit road, there are SLOW signs on the road. Its not that busy
Okay, IanMunro remains Against. New For vote from jonah tonto.
[u][b]Totals: 28 FOR, 26 AGAINST, 19 UNDECIDED.[/b][/u]
cync-al: well the non-peripheral (foveal) vision bit really isn't very wide.
But I think it is also about just making them think: a lot of drivers are on auto-pilot and most drivers are simply not looking for cyclists "shapes", they are looking car shapes.
A non-car shape off to the side, not in the path of their car, may be blissfully ignored - but two non-car shapes directly in their path requires some thought and action.
Riding two abreast is only safer if the drivers see you...
al - it might not be much difference, but you have to consider what you're being seen "against" and where a driver is most likely to be looking.
I'd argue that there is more road clutter nearer the gutter and you could easily blend in to this. In the middle of the road, you have less to blend in with. Of course, some of this is down to clothing choice / time of day.
Rightly or wrongly, most drivers are going to be looking ahead of them more than to the left. This is just because most "traffic" is going to be seen in that position.
FWIW, I wouldn't have been riding two-abreast, chatting, at that speed, on that dual carriageway, but I would have been riding in the Primary position.
GrahamS - I think that means I'm a FOR, but not always!
Riding two abreast is only safer if the drivers see you...
Granted, but how likely is that?
Two of you riding down the middle of the road is pretty obvious. If the driver is so blind or distracted that he/she doesn't see you both then isn't he/she even more likely to not see someone at the side of the road and swipe them as they go past?
druidh: new vote, duly noted.
[u][b]Totals: 29 FOR, 26 AGAINST, 19 UNDECIDED.[/b][/u]
I don't think the approaching roundabout bit holds water - they are easily 300 yards away when van passes them, it would take them quite a while to get there at that speed.
Against
FAir points druidh and Graham - it was just the "peripheral vision" crap that bugged me.
BTW I am not against, prob undecided/lost the will.
al moved to Undecided, new vote Against from stgeorge:
[u][b]Totals: 29 FOR, 26 AGAINST, 20 UNDECIDED.[/b][/u]
I don't think the approaching roundabout bit holds water - they are easily 300 yards away when van passes them, it would take them quite a while to get there at that speed.
But if they wait till they get to the roundabout before taking the primary then it could be too late and they'll be stuck at the kerb.
I struggle with long sentences but put me down in the For camp please graham. I mostly only ever ride on my own but on multilane roads I tend to stick in the centre of the lane anyway and since adopting this tactic 2 things have become very apparent. Number of people shouting at me has risen dramatically number of people nearly hitting me has dropped even more dramatically. Might not be popular but it is safer . (IME, YMMV etc)
Duly noted D0NK. And I agree: safety above "being considerate"
[u][b]Totals: 30 FOR, 26 AGAINST, 20 UNDECIDED.[/b][/u]
But if they wait till they get to the roundabout before taking the primary then it could be too late and they'll be stuck at the kerb.
Its not a busy road, there's plenty of time.
If the driver is so blind or distracted that he/she doesn't see you both then isn't he/she even more likely to not see someone at the side of the road and swipe them as they go past?
If you are at the side of the road on MOST roads they can drive by and still miss you.
It's true that most people will see you, but I don't trust every driver that much.
when i was my club road captain, i contacted the ministry of transport regarding this very issue, they said riding 2 up isallowed but not on busy roads, i asked for a definition of a busy road and they replied it was down to the road users judgement!
FWIW, I wouldn't have been riding two-abreast, chatting, at that speed, on that dual carriageway, but I would have been riding in the Primary position.
So does that mean your in the against camp?
BTW What's the question again?, I've forgotten 🙂
😳IanMunro - Member
> FWIW, I wouldn't have been riding two-abreast, chatting,
> at that speed, on that dual carriageway, but I would
> have been riding in the Primary position.
So does that mean your in the against camp?
Is it possible it's not black-and-white?
😛IanMunro - MemberBTW What's the question again?, I've forgotten
Its not a busy road, there's plenty of time.
True and they do seem to be pootling a bit, but I'd say that around 30 seconds into that video I would definitely be looking to take the primary for the roundabout if I wasn't there already.
If you are at the side of the road on MOST roads they can drive by and still miss you.
Only if you're riding in close at the kerb/gutter (which means you are negotiating drains, cracks and debris). If you're riding 50cm out (+ ~40cm for your bars/elbow/arse) then surely you're wide enough to get clipped by cars that don't take action?
It's true that most people will see you, but I don't trust every driver that much.
Fair enough. That's the main reason I try to avoid riding on roads at all.
if we are tallying up then i'm for.
I deliberately avoided my view to make a point, which i think has been made.
If you are at the side of the road on MOST roads they can drive by and still miss you.It's true that most people will see you, but I don't trust every driver that much.
so you trust MOST of them to miss you if they have not seen you but not to see 2 of you in the middle of the road - this is TJ levels of obstinacy 😉
Its not a busy road, there's plenty of time.
so they were not holding anyone up and it was easy to get round then 😯
Number of people shouting at me has risen dramatically number of people nearly hitting me has dropped even more dramatically. Might not be popular but it is safer
THIS you have no choice sadly if you wish to reduce your chances of being hit
thomthumb moved from Undecided to For.
[b][u]Totals: 31 FOR, 26 AGAINST, 19 UNDECIDED.[/u][/b]
Number of people shouting at me has risen dramatically
I suppose at least if they are shouting you know that they saw you!
I wonder if these people also shout at tractors, bin lorries, road sweepers, horses, mopeds, old people and hearses?
Was TJ's argument that riding two abreast on that road doesn't cause anymore inconvenience to drivers than a single cyclist, because in either case a car would have to use some of the overtaking lane?
If that was the gist of it, put me down as a FOR.
thegreatape moves from Undecided to For.
Scores on the doors are now:
[u][b]Totals: 32 FOR, 26 AGAINST, 18 UNDECIDED.[/b][/u]
I would say yes two abreast is prob safer. Being harangued by a nob in a white van is less of a PITA than him mowing you down.
on multilane roads I tend to stick in the centre of the lane anyway and since adopting this tactic 2 things have become very apparent. Number of people shouting at me has risen dramatically number of people nearly hitting me has dropped even more dramatically. Might not be popular but it is safer .
This is the important point. Most people in the against camp seem to be there in order to avoid upsetting drivers. All of the for camp are there because of road safety.
Its not a busy road
In which case there's no need whatsoever for them to single out.
But.. if you are in the middle of the lane and someone is not watching at all, they would plough straight into you..?
I ride at the side because I think it keeps drivers happier AND it's safer.
Most people in the against camp seem to be there in order to avoid upsetting drivers. All of the for camp are there because of road safety.
Or the former have a different perspective on what makes things safe to the latter.
Like helmets init 🙂
Mind you, at least with the helmet debates, there's plenty of research evidence to present and rubbish.
There is a small amount of evidence that's been published that the further you cycle away from the curb the closer vehicles overtake you, but I wouldn't present it as an argument to support any case though.
doc: new vote noted:
[u][b]Totals: 33 FOR, 26 AGAINST, 18 UNDECIDED.[/b][/u]
But.. if you are in the middle of the lane and someone is not watching at all, they would plough straight into you..?
How often does that actually happen though?
I think it is probably a fear of most road cyclists, especially when you hear a big engine behind you, but I suspect it is actually a very rare event in situations like that video: a straight urban 30mph dual carriageway with good viz and two riders sitting in the middle of the lane.
And as I said, you'd presumably take the primary for negotiating the roundabout anyway, no?
if you are in the middle of the lane and someone is not watching at all, they would plough straight into you..?
why are you so certain this inattentive driver who cannot see someone in th eroad wont just drift into the kerb and plough you down.
Show and tell Ian, would be interested in reading. Does it apply to multi lanes aswell? My own statistically insignificant experience says if I ride in the gutter and >90% of drivers will stay in the same lane as me as they overtake. Ride in the middle and <10% attempt to stay in the same lane ie move so far right that 3/4ers of their "footprint" is in the next lane but won't give up their tenuous grip on my lane.
interesting mutilane related [url= http://aseasyasridingabike.wordpress.com/2011/06/03/dual-carriageways-and-how-cyclists-get-hit-on-them/ ]blogging[/url]
This is the important point. Most people in the against camp seem to be there in order to avoid upsetting drivers. All of the for camp are there because of road safety.
No, most of the "for" camp are there cos they know it's someone's right to cycle two abreast. They'll defend that right even if it means being unnecessarily selfish.
Being considerate (and assertive) on the road is the safest and most socially positive way to travel.
@Graham S: This is FeeFoo's twin brother so put down another one for the "Against" 8)
Inevitably
FTFYBeing assertive (and considerate) on the road is the safest and most socially positive way to travel.
And as I said, you'd presumably take the primary for negotiating the roundabout anyway, no?
No, not at that distance.
If you were turning right at that roundabout would you be in the right hand lane at that distance/speed?
I wouldn't.
Show and tell Ian, would be interested in reading. Does it apply to multi lanes aswell
[url] http://drianwalker.com/overtaking/ [/url]
Sorry, don't know about multi lanes. It's far from comprehensive from the perspective of this particular thread, which is why I wouldn't really cite it as evidence in relation to personal safety, but it's still quite interesting in general.
Stick me in AGAINST cat .
Just because a book says its ok does not make it right , or safe.
Seen the headlines* form that before didn't read the rest 😳
*helmt = closer overtake
why are you so certain this inattentive driver who cannot see someone in th eroad wont just drift into the kerb and plough you down.
Just about to cycle home, so haven't thought this though. But assuming that an inattentive driver will drift in the kerb, then I'd assume (in most cases) that some time has elapsed between loosing attention and ploughing into the curb. I.e they spend more time in the middle of the road not paying attention then when they hit the curb and crash - which is pretty much a smaller time-frame (at a guess).
No, most of the "for" camp are there cos they know it's someone's right to cycle two abreast.
Yeah this idea keeps coming up from the Against camp again and again.
Many people seem to think they riding in that position to deliberately upset drivers and "endangering" themselves to make some kind of pedantic militant cyclist point about their technical rights.
I don't see any evidence for that.
If they were doing it just to make a point then surely they'd have had a better comeback ready for White Van Man, rather than meekly apologising.
It's got naff all to do with being "technically right". IMO they are just two blokes trying to ride along that road in what they regard as the safest possible manner.
am i down as For, Against or Undecided in your spreadsheet Graham? i assume you have a spreadsheet.
Stick me in AGAINST cat .
Okay, singletrackmind moved from Undecided to Against
[u][b]Totals: 33 FOR, 27 AGAINST, 17 UNDECIDED.[/b][/u]
You're currently down as Against, theprawn. Original list [url= http://singletrackworld.com/forum/topic/riding-two-abreast-on-a-two-lane-road-yay-or-nay-video/page/8#post-3282502 ]here[/url].
I didn't think to make it a spreadsheet. Sorry.
could you move me to undecided please.
It's got naff all to do with being "technically right". IMO they are just two blokes trying to ride along that road in what they regard as the safest possible manner.
Come on, do you really believe they had the conversation that went something like : "We're on a busy road, it'd be best if we ride two abreast to make sure no-one hits us" ?
Ridiculous. They were being selfish.
Ride defensively, ride assertively, but above all ride considerately.
Antagonising motorists, and I think WE ALL KNOW that this will antagonise them, is always a bad move.
Question
If you're riding two abreast and the person on the inside encounters and obstacle that's only avoidable by moving to the right, what happens? Same also applies for the outside rider if they encounter something that can only be avoided by moving to the inside.
Ride in single file in primary position and you can move from left to right without hitting another rider.
could you move me to undecided please.
Righto.
[u][b]Totals: 33 FOR, 27 AGAINST, 17 UNDECIDED.[/b][/u]
Come on, do you really believe they had the conversation that went something like : "We're on a busy road, it'd be best if we ride two abreast to make sure no-one hits us" ?
Yes. You can hear them actively discussing the best road position in the video.
Ride defensively, ride assertively, but above all ride considerately.
No thanks!
I'd put safety above all, including being considerate.
If being safe means I have to be "inconsiderate" then so be it.
(And how inconsiderate is it [i]really[/i] being? They have a whole other lane to use.)
Boardinbob - What happens? You crash and eat humble pie.
From Ian's link
Drivers passed closer to the rider the further out into the road he was. This is contrary to what many experienced bicyclists believed should happen.
The riding-position effect suggests drivers simply do not change their overtaking paths very much as a function of where a rider is: if a cyclist rides further into the road, they will on average be closer to passing vehicles as a result.
so put me down for an "against" vote.
As we're always being told in helmet threads "how safe cycling really is" I'm not convinced that a few decimetres here or there is going to have much effect on whether I'm going to be wiped out by another road user.
For me any overtake that doesn't knock me off has been a safe one, what do the primary positionists feel is a safe overtaking distance ?
do you really believe they had the conversation that went something like : "We're on a busy road, it'd be best if we ride two abreast to make sure no-one hits us" ?
No - because riding 2 abreast is the default safest (and most considerate) way to ride except in a very few unusual circumstances. They might discuss needing to single out at some point I guess - such "conversations" certainly happen when I'm riding with someone. Just to remove any suspicion that I'm militantly claiming my right, I quite often do single out when there are cars behind and it makes it a bit easier to overtake safely.
Ridiculous. They were being selfish.
Ride defensively, ride assertively, but above all ride considerately.
You're definitely in the "avoid upsetting drivers" camp then.
You're a great comedian aracer, top work!
so put me down for an "against" vote.
Willco. New Against vote from hilldodger.
[u][b]Totals: 33 FOR, 28 AGAINST, 17 UNDECIDED.[/b][/u]
ok, i've been pretty convinced, the roundabout, the other lane being there for passing, being visible etc. put me down as a For.
You're a very poor troll, GaddPaul - sorry.
i've been pretty convinced
You've changed your opinion based on people's arguments in this thread? 😯 That's not the STW way - clearly you've been away too long.
Drivers passed closer to the rider the further out into the road he was. This is contrary to what many experienced bicyclists believed should happen.
The riding-position effect suggests drivers simply do not change their overtaking paths very much as a function of where a rider is: if a cyclist rides further into the road, they will on average be closer to passing vehicles as a result.
Maybe true but as you feel them coming you can move further in. If I hear a big/loud vehicle behind me I sometimes move out into the road more then pull in as I feel them start to overtake.
If they pass close to you and you are already near the kerb you cant change how close the driver drives to you.
And how inconsiderate is it really being? They have a whole other lane to use.)
In the grand scheme of things it's not inconsiderate, but knuckle dragging white van drivers don't see it that way and I imagine if one of the cyclists had got a bit lippy with him that could have escalated into a fight. Is it really worth it?
I'm not saying we should be bullied off the roads put pootling along a busy dual carriageway two abreast is never going to help our cause in the eyes of irate motorists.
That's not the STW way
you don't get a ban for nothing.
Trust me, upsetting drivers is the most stupid thing you can do on a bike.
Answer this one: Will cycling two abreast annoy drivers?
Anyone who believes that it won't is, at best, naive.
You're definitely in the "avoid upsetting drivers" camp then.
Generally, I'm in the "avoiding upsetting people" camp.
You've changed your opinion based on people's arguments in this thread?
See what can happen when TJ isn't arguing? 😀
theprawn moves from Undecided to For.
[u][b]Totals: 34 FOR, 28 AGAINST, 16 UNDECIDED.[/b][/u]
Answer this one: Will cycling two abreast annoy drivers?
Of course it will.
Answer this one: would you put yourself in greater danger to avoid upsetting people?
If you're riding two abreast and the person on the inside encounters and obstacle that's only avoidable by moving to the right, what happens? Same also applies for the outside rider if they encounter something that can only be avoided by moving to the inside.
I think a certain rider called Jonny Hoogerland might have an answer to that one .
Car brushes ooutside rider , outside rider hits inside rider , both riders eat tarmac.
Drivers passed closer to the rider the further out into the road he was. This is contrary to what many experienced bicyclists believed should happen.
The riding-position effect suggests drivers simply do not change their overtaking paths very much as a function of where a rider is: if a cyclist rides further into the road, they will on average be closer to passing vehicles as a result.
Well, quite often drivers do pass closer than necessary if the rider is further out in the road, it seems to be done to attempt to force the rider to the edge of the road, to "teach them a lesson". Of course most drivers don't think through the safety implications of using 2 tonnes of car to admonish vulnerable road users, but the belief that it's their right to take such action in the first place is worrying.
Of course it will.Answer this one: would you put yourself in greater danger to avoid upsetting people?
No, but your answer is elliptical.
If you upset drivers you are putting yourself in the greatest danger.
Therefore, the safest option is NOT TO UPSET THEM IN THE FIRST PLACE.
Thanks for proving my point emphatically.
ooo good points made there.
can you move me back to undecided again please.
upsetting drivers is the most stupid thing you can do on a bike.
Actually I can think of quite a lot of more stupid things, including putting yourself in such a position that they knock you off without upsetting themselves.
are you suggesting they wouldn't be upset if they knocked you off? you've really gone too far. they are HUMANS.
If you upset drivers you are putting yourself in the greatest danger
In your opinion. Thankfully whilst road rage incidents do happen they're extremely rare, meanwhile lots more people get knocked off their bikes due to plain inattention and not looking properly or judging things incorrectly. Personally I'll take irritating somebody if it makes them see me and are forces them to pay attention to me.
scu98rkr - Member
If I hear a big/loud vehicle behind me I sometimes move out into the road more then pull in as I feel them start to overtake.
I tend to hop up onto the pavement when I get that "feeling" that something big is working up to an overtaking manoeuvre, 9/10 times that gets a "thank you" single hazard light flash.
My thinking is that I can change my position quicker, easier and more safely than a truck and although I acknowledge my "rights" as a road user I also acknowledge my courtesy and common sense as a human being 😉
If you upset drivers you are putting yourself in the greatest danger.
Therefore, the safest option is NOT TO UPSET THEM IN THE FIRST PLACE.
Then the safest option to do is not ride on the road at all because that is the only way you'll avoid upsetting drivers.
Honestly road rage is a problem, granted, but we're not yet at a point where more cyclists are injured by road rage than by careless accidents.
If we ever get to that sad point [u]then[/u] we should think about placing upsetting drivers above riding in the safest position.
can you move me back to undecided again please.
I see what you're doing shrimpy.
[u][b]Totals: 33 FOR, 28 AGAINST, 17 UNDECIDED.[/b][/u]
Be warned that efforts to disrupt the voting process will result in the exclusion of voting rights!
Well you dont irritate me aracer, and I've noticed you. It can be done!
Personally I'll take irritating somebody if it makes them see me and are forces them to pay attention to me.
Yes completely agree, but you can do that [b]without[/b] riding two abreast.
Riding two abreast sends a clear signal "I'm exercising my right to do this and If you get annoyed, I'm still in the right so tough!"
That will wind drivers up and increase the risk of aggressive reactions.
clearly i haven't been swayed by any arguments. the whole thread is pointless. i'd like to be removed from the voting process. all 3 people in the video were losers.
no. wait. put me down for the opposite to tandem jeremy because i don't like his tone.
Then the safest option to do is not ride on the road at all because that is the only way you'll avoid upsetting drivers.
Nope, that's being absurd.
Upset drivers cause accidents. If you want to be the person in that accident then fine.
theshrimp abstains.
[u][b]Totals: 33 FOR, 28 AGAINST, 16 UNDECIDED.[/b][/u]
Upset drivers cause accidents.
Oh is [i]that[/i] what causes accidents?
I always thought SMIDSY was the main cause.
How far do you take this philosophy?
Many drivers also get upset at Advanced Stop Lines, should we avoid using them?
How about Overtaking cars in jams? They don't like that. Using Toucan Crossings? Riding in cycle lanes? Not riding in cycle lanes? Using lights that are "too bright"? Wearing lycra? Going too slowly? Going too fast?
Can we have a single transferable vote system instead?
I hear both arguments based in safety, and both make valid points. I think moving to the primary position for negotiating roundabouts etc (after checking over your shoulder for any rapidly approaching motorists) is probably an excellent idea, as traffic speeds around these obstacles would generally be slower and driver attention higher. If the pair in the vid were doing that, then I'm perilously close to joining the for camp... However! This pair are not in the primary position, they are abreast, which reduces their escape routes significantly, and they are too far from the roundabout to be adopting it anyway, given their somewhat lackadaisical pace.
My main problem with cyclists using the primary position at all times is that it violates my personal road safety rule number 1: never trust another road user with your life! Assume that they are all blind idiots until proven otherwise.
How far do you take this philosophy?
I have nothing more to add.
I've probably spent more time road riding in traffic than most on here* and feel confident in my point of view.
Edit: *cos I am teh AWESOME!
Ridiculous. They were being selfish.
You have no way of proving this have you it is just you repeating your view again – is everyone who obeys the laws being selfish or just cyclists?
Ride defensively, ride assertively, but above all ride considerately.
Thats a lovely message to the car drivers and i thank you for making the roads safer for cyclists
Antagonising motorists, and I think WE ALL KNOW that this will antagonise them, is always a bad move.
OF COURSE WE ALL KNOW THE CAR IS KING WHAT WERE WE THINKING OF – WE SHOULD OF COURSE GIVE WAY TO THEM AT ALL [even though we are not breaking the law] TIMES AND NEVR IMPEED THEIR PROGRESS
If you upset drivers you are putting yourself in the greatest danger.
Therefore, the safest option is NOT TO UPSET THEM IN THE FIRST PLACE.
It is better to upset them as they have seen you than let them pass close to you and not upset IMHO /IME
Riding two abreast sends a clear signal "I'm exercising my right to do this and If you get annoyed, I'm still in the right so tough!"
You are just repeating what you think it means and trying to make your opinion a fact by just repeating it – it does not work for TJ and i doubt it will work for you
Poor car driving made me ride defensively I did not start out this far out- sometimes I will hug the kerb if I deem it safe to pass but not on a dual carriageway as it is the car behind you need to worry about
Poor car driving made me ride defensively I did not start out this far out- sometimes I will hug the kerb if I deem it safe to pass but not on a dual carriageway as it is the car behind you need to worry about
What does this have to do with riding two abreast? Nothing.
Stick to the topic.
Actually, copies and pastes
I have nothing more to add.
I've probably spent more time road riding in traffic than most on here and feel confident in my point of view.