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

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.

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.

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.

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!"

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.

Junkyard obviously has anger issues. Shouting and everything.

To me one of the problems here is that the antis are taking a very car-centric viewpoint. I fully accept the point about not upsetting people, both from wishing to be courteous to others and from a safety perspective. But... all these guys are doing is riding down the road. They are barely, if at all, holding anyone up.

I was riding along today when a car overtook me (safely) went 50 yards up the road and then had to stop because there was a line of parked cars with traffic coming the other way. I had to pull up behind and stop (no way past). Without the car being there I could have continued the road past the parked cars as there was bags of space. As it was I WAS DELAYED BY AT LEAST 20 SECONDS !!!. If I took my cue from WVM I should've leapt off the bike and had a go at the driver for being so inconsiderate as to delay me. Even before he overtook me it was obvious he would have to stop.

The problem is:
Bike delays car/van = froth rant 'why don't you pay road tax' etc
car delays bike = situation normal.

I don't think it is terribly sensible to ride 2 abreast in this case, but there is no doubt that the perception that the car driver has more right to be there seems to play an awful lot in how this situation is viewed.

'kin 'ell - it made 400 with consomethinge ease!!

Oldgit I was joking...a lost art on here it seems

Clearly.
Still think there's nothing to it, I have a sweet relationship with drivers.
Like I said the irony was that the day I thought to stand my ground was the day I eventually got hit by a car. And it's seems the folk who bang on about the rights and wrongs seem to have the most trouble.

IME just riding out enough to clear drains ect so you can keep a constant predictable line is the safest. I would think a motorist would overtake just as close to you if you were 50 or 100 cm out? Then the problem is that if there's a car coming the other way you effectively squeeze the car into a tighter gap, and I'd imagine that a motorist would instinctivly hit the smaller object i.e you rather than have a head on. No?

I think that being 'car-centric' is quite a sensible position for a cyclist using the road network to take, purely because there are lots of them its best to assume that they are all driven by blond idiots and they kill cyclists. Not worshipping the car, just respecting their otential for harm.