Not necessarily. I don’t believe it’s always responsible to ride two abreast.

Isn’t it a problem of perception? If there isn’t room to pass two cyclists riding abreast, then you probably shouldn’t pass even if they go into single file.

gwj72 – You’re on to a loser here mate.

Everybody is a roadie on this forum these days, didn’t you know?

On the rare occasion I drove the car back from work today (yes, I normally bike it!), an obviously very intelligent and not at all inbred cyclist, who was attempting to negotiate a route across a set of traffic lights, questioned me through the car window as I was driving past, somewhat aggressively I might add, “What the **** are you doing, you f**king d**k?”.

I was very shocked by this question, especially as I was the one going through the set of traffic lights that were on green.

Did I miss something here, has the general rules that apply to road crossing and the whole theory behind red and green lights been changed over night.If so, it’s no wonder cyclists are crossing on red!

Or is it that nobody seems to be bothered about the what other people are doing on the roads. Maybe that’s why the council has started putting up signs at roundabouts, reminding people that you have to give way to traffic from the right.

Can’t help think sometimes, has the general intelligence of todays motorists and cyclists really fallen to an all time low.

Interesting how quickly we resort to quoting the rulebook when it suits us, and yet a page or 2 back, people were talking about they quite happily break the rules when it suits them.

It’s not hard to ride safely and still be courteous, some of you come across as real selfish pricks.

If there isn’t room to pass two cyclists riding abreast, then you probably shouldn’t pass even if they go into single file

Not convinced by that.

You’re on a loser here I’m afraid gwj72, and once again I’m amazed that someone on a ‘cycling’ forum, who claims to ride a bike, holds such a view.

Holds what view? As far as I am aware I’m the only witness to this incident.

Although apparently everyone seems to know the width of the road, the condition of the cycle path, the speed being travelled, the skill and consideration of the driver etc…

It’s one incident that the militant cycle clip brigade have jumped on to air their own grievances. Well if you all feel better now, shall we move on?

i suspect you are right but given the number of near misses I would rather be seen as that and get home safely than be a polite corpse.

cyclists break rules ,car drivers break rules.cyclist generally do it to be safer for themsleves; car drivers do it because they are in a rush
Neither groups is always right or always wrong
Ps nice move insulting cyclist on a cycling forum i think you are on to a winning strategy now gwj72

gwj72

Isn’t it a problem of perception? If there isn’t room to pass two cyclists riding abreast, then you probably shouldn’t pass even if they go into single file.

amedias – Member

if there’s room to pass a single cyclist safely, there is generally room to pass a pair.

likewise if it is not safe to pass a pair then it *normally* isn’t safe to pass even if they were in single file.

you should give as much room as you would a car which means even in single file you will normally be crossing the central line to pass so 1 versus a pair is pretty much the same thing.

I think what I’m trying to say is, just wait until it is safe to pass, they are well within their right (legally and morally) to be two abreast.

what would you do if it were horses?

This is the bit you are missing. cyclists are road users adn are entiltled to use the roads. they do not have to get out of the car drivers way.

Not convinced by that.

The Highway code says you should give as much room to cyclists as you would to a car…

As it happens, I do the same as you – pull into single file if there’s traffic behind, but on reflection, I wonder if it’s safer to continue riding abreast?

“It’s not hard to ride safely and still be courteous, some of you come across as real selfish pricks.”

Hits nail on head.

Don’t upset the STW bullies, will you?

cyclist generally do it to be safer for themsleves

Don’t agree with that. Some do, but many cyclists flaunt the rules because a) they can’t be bothered to stop at red lights and b) they can get away with it.

If there isn’t room to pass two cyclists riding abreast, then you probably shouldn’t pass even if they go into single file
Not convinced by that.

hence the qualifier ‘probably’, I know in some circumstances the reduction of a single person/bikes width will make all the difference and it can be totally safe.

It’s just in general I think that most people leave far too small a gap when passing cyclists (one or two abreast). If they were doing it *properly* and leaving them enough room then unless on wide enough road with nothing coming the other way an extra persons worth of width makes little difference and in some cases its safer fro the cyclists as it makes motorists think about if they really can overtake safely rather than just going for it and squeezing through.

P.S I am a cyclist, motorist, pedestrian and occasional skipper and not militant about any of it

For any that know it on my way to work today i was coming down Ketley bank in telford (good gradient mucho speed on road tyres) when not one but two guys walk out into the road from opposite side infront of me, not only do these darwin wannabe’s see me as crossing,but the sight of me approaching at fair speed catches them in rabbit form and stops them dead in my carriage way, some how avoided both ( passing between them) and can only shake my head as doing so at the pure stupidity of some pedestrians

This is the bit you are missing. cyclists are road users adn are entiltled to use the roads. they do not have to get out of the car drivers way.

Jeremy I’m missing nothing. Your point is completely moot. Each and every incident is different. I live in the bloody peak district for god’s sake – have you any idea how many journeys I make that include waits behind horses, tractors, cattle and cyclists? Bloody loads!

And I am always courteous and safe whether in car or on bike. These dick heads were neither, whether you wish to believe that or not. And just because you believe they had a legal right to act like that (which I refute), doesn’t make it right does it?

You defend their picking on a little old woman in her micra too? Because their your lycra brothers you’d be lining up to give her a dig eh?

Ever crossed a pedestrian crossing when its a red man?

Does it piss off cyclists when motorists pull up at traffic lights really close to the kerb?

Does it piss off cyclists when motorists pull up at traffic lights really close to the kerb?

Depends. If they have no choice, i.e the road splits in two, no, its not their fault it shit road/traffic engineering.

You defend their picking on a little old woman in her micra too? Because their your lycra brothers you’d be lining up to give her a dig eh?

The little old woman is driving a car which if she’s not careful could kill a cyclist very easily indeed. Just sayin…

Does it piss off cyclists when motorists pull up at traffic lights really close to the kerb?

not as much as it does them when you then go round the outside and pull in front of them……

Ever crossed a pedestrian crossing when its a red man?

Jay walking is not an offence in the UK.

gwj72

No – you are missing the point. If the road is not wide enough / clear enough to pass two cyclists safely then it is not wide / clear enough to pass one cyclists safely ( in the vast majority of cases) – thats if you drive according to the highway code.

You want the cyclists to squeeze into the edge so that the cars can push past – thats putting the cyclists in danger.

I have quoted you the various bits of the highway code including a picture.

dear god I hate it when I find myself agreeing with TJ….

@Jeremy,

Can you tell furnish me with following details please;

How wide was the road?
How far into the road were the cyclists?
How far apart were the two cyclists?
What speed were the cyclists travelling at?
What speed was the car travelling at?
What were the other road conditions like?
How wide was the cycle path?
How far wide did the driver overtake?
How far did the cyclist swerve?

If you know all that then you’ve got something to argue about. But as it happens your working blind and just repeating dogma which is completely unrelated to the incident.

Your belief is that the cyclist is somehow always right regardless of the circumstances. Which is clearly bollocks now isn’t it?

gwj72

The thrust of your argument seems to be that the cyclists were creating an obstruction through riding two abreast, and not using the cycle path. Hopefully you’ve now had enough replies to disabuse you of this incorrect notion.

Therefore the list of questions you present are largely immaterial.

ransos – the cyclists were causing an obstruction, for all of the reasons gwj72 has highlighted.

213
Motorcyclists and cyclists may suddenly need to avoid uneven road surfaces and obstacles such as drain covers or oily, wet or icy patches on the road. Give them plenty of room and pay particular attention to any sudden change of direction they may have to make.

Pics from rules 162-169 overtaking
In essence she should have anticipated that he may swerve due to a variety of reasons and given even more room – I assume he stayed on his side of the road – she should have been on the other side of the road

GG using he road legally at a speed slower than a car is not an obstruction in any way shape or form it is just going slower than you wish to go. Is a funeral procession an obstruction?

GlitterGary – Member

ransos – the cyclists were causing an obstruction, for all of the reasons gwj72 has highlighted.

No they were not – for all the reasons the rest of us have highlighted. They were legitimately using the road.

ransos – the cyclists were causing an obstruction, for all of the reasons gwj72 has highlighted.

Is there a legal requirement to use a cycle path?
Is there a legal requirement to cycle in single file?
Is there a legal requirement to cycle at a minimum speed?

Answer to all three questions is no, and hence they were not causing an obstruction. They may have been acting discourteously, but that isn’t an offence.

“They may have been acting discourteously, but that isn’t an offence.”

Which is offensive.

@ransos,

They had loads of space in which to ride (not squeezed to the side of the road) without obstructing other road users but chose not to. They were not looking what was going on around them. One wasn’t even in proper control of his bike. Both, although one more than the other, thought being violent to a pensioner was reasonable.

If you want to throw you hat in with them, that’s your choice. I just remember the look of shock and their quick retreat when challenged about their actions. I.E he shit himself when I started shouting. Like a man who knew he was clearly in the wrong.

Is there a legal requirement not to;

go round the outside and pull in front of them……

?Does that make it acceptable?

Answer to all three questions is no, and hence they were not causing an obstruction. They may have been acting discourteously, but that isn’t an offence.

You didn’t read section 3 of the road traffic act did you? Being discourteous (inconsiderate) to other road users is an offence. No he didn’t need to do those individual things by law, but by choosing not to, with no good reason he was acting inconsiderately. Which is an offence.

You don’t have to like it. But it is true.

Unless they were cycling taking up both lanes, and he swerved all the way into the other lane, then maybe she didn’t give them enough room? They do sound a bit discourteous but it sounds like they were totally in their rights to do it…

They may have been acting discourteously

Is there much more to the argument than this? Courtesy goes both ways of course. The “I can, so I will” cycle militants really get my goat.

They had loads of space in which to ride (not squeezed to the side of the road) without obstructing other road users but chose not to. They were not looking what was going on around them. One wasn’t even in proper control of his bike. Both, although one more than the other, thought being violent to a pensioner was reasonable.

You based your opinion on the basis that not using the cycle path, and cycling two abreast, is creating an obstruction. You are clearly incorrect, so now you’re trying to dig up all sorts of other stuff to justify your position. It’s not very edifying.

You didn’t read section 3 of the road traffic act did you? Being discourteous (inconsiderate) to other road users is an offence. No he didn’t need to do those individual things by law, but by choosing not to, with no good reason he was acting inconsiderately. Which is an offence.

Funnily enough, the police said the same thing about Daniel Caddon. The judge said otherwise.

Next!

TJ Quote from earlier in the thread

I find the lycra clad are equally bad – rubbish road positioning, poor rearward observation, aggressive riding.

Perhaps they were doing the above

Is there much more to the argument than this? Courtesy goes both ways of course. The “I can, so I will” cycle militants really get my goat.

I used the word “may” because we don’t know.

I live in Bristol which has quite a high ‘commute by bike’ rate per head. The issue of cyclists running red lights, undercutting etc comes up maybe every other day in the local paper, and is raised every day on the papers web site – irate car drivers pissed off with the increased number of cyclists running red lights or riding on the pavement etc. However the general term ‘cyclist’ applys to all bikes in the eyes of the non cycling public.

I personally commute 3-4 days a week by bike, only 7 miles each way (with 3 of those on separated cycle routes) – i see maybe 1 or 2 potential accidents of people running red lights, or pulling ‘stupid moves’. So i can sympathise with the car drivers.
May be 50% of the cyclists out on Bristol’s roads (by my reckoning) are completely ignorant of road laws – which are there to protect them, as well as drivers.
As the UK’s amount of cyclist increase the amount running red lights etc will surely increase – accidents will rise. Any cyclist who runs a red light (imo) should be prosecuted (£30 fixed penalty). Any one who says its safer to do so is asking for trouble – i’ll feel more sorry for the driver (who will be prosecuted) who hits him/her than the cyclist.

As for accidents – so far this year I’ve seen 4 (3 were women) – 3 of them were undertaking lorrys or busses and one was runninga red light through a pestrian crossing.

There are some great sections in ‘The Bicycle Book’ by Bella Bathurst on cycle commuting including interveiws with taxi drivers, stats on deaths in London etc.

“Courtesy goes both ways of course. The “I can, so I will” cycle militants really get my goat.”

This ^^^