if they are travelling at 10 mph (16 km/h) or less

I suspect they weren’t.

I pull in for drivers when riding two abreast, and if it’s been a while I will even pull over and stop. I get a smile and a wave.

Legality be damned, it’s just nice.

Not sure what I’d do if I were in a big group though.

Not illegal to cross if they are slow,,

agreed, but 10mph is SLOW!!!! almost any cyclist on a flat road can easily be doing that sort of speed.

It obviously needs to be updated to take carbon and lycra clad awsomeness into account 😉

Is it likely that at any point in the future, group riding on the public highway could be outlawed due to the actions of obstinate die-hards..?

Politically, practically and legally impossible.
Road races (at grass roots level) are at more of a risk and I know a couple of courses have been lost due to NIMBY locals – there was an incident last week in Surrey where the police stopped a race after complaints by locals but that prompted a furious reaction from everyone involved.

I’m not so sure.. we’d still be in an enormous minority wouldn’t we..? I don’t know the statistics.. There’d just be many more of us for motorists to get in a flap about..

agreed, which is where the money comes in, will a government ban things their voters do, voters tend to be better off. cyclists tend to be better off. etc. Not saying they won’t, just don’t think they will.

kids/young people don’t vote so they can go jump, hence banning raves etc. easy vote winner.

I’m just thinking gypsy trotting races etc which are very similar in many ways and were banned for similar reasons

EDIT – ah.. I’m now understanding the vote winning stuff..

But that does sort of indicate that some roadies may well consider themselves to be surly mavericks, above reproach, and the law, and certainly not bound by silly constraints like common sense and social acceptability.. and by the same logic not too dissimilar to our nomadic brethren.. 😉

Interesting point yunki as there are loads of those round my way and they present a big road hazard, even when out ‘training’.

But that does sort of indicate that some roadies may well consider themselves to be surly mavericks, above reproach, and the law, and certainly not bound by silly constraints like common sense and social acceptability..

not through deliberate thought , but i don’t doubt some see themselves as rebelling against the system, no different to middle aged audi driving IT consultants who think it is fine to build jumps on footpaths.

People are funny.

Just wait until there’s a critical mass of us.

Gotta laugh at all this! Talking about cyclists flouting the law (it ain’t even against the law!) and all that – and you can go out any time day or night and see a substantial number of car drivers speeding and (worse in my book) driving way too close to the car in front, totally unable to see the road ahead and/or react. Ultimately, cyclists being conservative about letting a car past kills no-one.

certainly not bound by silly constraints like common sense and social acceptability..

Or some may just think that common sense means not endangering yourself for the sake of social acceptability?

It’s interesting that there are two opposing opinions here both talking about safety.

But the main argument from one side seems to be saying that cyclists should know their place and cower in the gutter, accepting increased dangers, lest they upset someone and are deservedly murdered by his car.

Personally I’m happy to be as considerate as I can be, but my safety comes way ahead of politeness.
I don’t ride in road groups, but if I did I’d stick true to that and do what I felt was safest, which may often mean upsetting a driver.

Talking about cyclists flouting the law (it ain’t even against the law!) and all that

I think you’ve misunderstood..
the law is not the issue.. we’re debating as to whether that as a morally superior species, we cyclists should show consideration and compassion to our less well evolved brethren, and the debilitating panic that they suffer when they encounter us in their metal death machines..

I and others believe that we would be doing ourselves and them a favour by helping them to get past and on their way as swiftly as possible, even if that means, god forbid, slowing or stopping our forward progress momentarily..

Where as some grumpy old men who didn’t rebel enough in their youth believe that we should stand up for our right to block the carriageway regardless of the negative outcome..

Just to recap, a group of cyclists riding two abreast on a windy road and pulling into a garage to get out of the way is bad,

Threatening to kill cyclists for holding up drivers is good?

Does that about sum it up?

no

I think you’ve misunderstood..
the law is not the issue.. it’s the fact that as a morally superior species, we cyclists should show consideration and compassion to our less well evolved brethren, and the panic that they suffer when they encounter us in their metal death machines..

I and others believe that we would be doing ourselves and them a favour by helping them to get past and on their way..

Where as some grumpy old men who didn’t rebel enough in their youth believe that we should stand up for our rights regardless of the negative outcome.. I think I understand perfectly.

What some people fail to grasp is that every rider that rides in the gutter makes that the norm in the eyes of car drivers. So everyone that rides properly (pro-actively, communicating with drivers but not hiding in the side of the road) is considered by some to be obstinate/beligerent/asking for it.

We do not need to borrow the bit of road that others aren’t using – that isn’t even the road, it’s the gutter.

no-one mentioned riding in the gutter until you did, just then.. don’t invent a new argument at this late stage in the proceedings..! 😆

I and others believe that we would be doing ourselves and them a favour by helping them to get past and on their way as swiftly as possible, even if that means, god forbid, slowing or stopping our forward progress momentarily..

And what if that means compromising your safety or the safety of those in your group, or even the driver?

Still let them past?

no

having actually read the whole thread seemed to me that alot of supposed cyclists seemed to be suggesting that killing cyclists was ok.

maybe i misread that?

If there is one or two of you it is easy to get out of the way, and yes i do try and help drivers past, but never if it means endangering myself and if that means taking a lane for a while so be it. Problem comes when you get a group of more than half dozen. group dynamics car drivers impatience etc. To be honest you rarely get the situation where a driver will be behind you for more than a few hundred metres, because they will force there way through.

Maybe the cyclists were confused by a driver not trying to kill them with some dodgy overtaking manoeuvre?

Just to recap, a group of cyclists riding two abreast on a windy road and pulling into a garage to get out of the way is bad,

Clearly not, why are you twisting it around?

Needlessly holding up a fellow human being for selfish reasons is bad.

They didn’t call it riding in the gutter, but that’s what I’d call it! A good metre to the road edge is what I consider a minimum. Some car drivers expect much closer.

Needlessly holding up a fellow human being for selfish reasons is bad.

This is the misunderstanding. Just because the car driver considers it needless, doesn’t mean it is. The cyclist alone gets to decide and the car driver will just have to wait a minute.

I must write that book one day, I really must. ‘The Science of Rockets’

Though I must chip in about spacing out a group…non. It’s the whole communications thing? once you’ve agreed exactly who and where to split up. How do you let the driver know that he/she is meant to nip into the gap. Then once the car is in the group how does he/she signal pot holes or gravel to the riders behind.

The big problem is those pesky country lanes, you get all sorts of slow moving stuff on em.
That’s why God created bypasses.

Needlessly holding up a fellow human being for selfish reasons is bad.

that’s all I’m saying.. but as a result of this thread I’m now also beginning to understand the group riding dynamic thing and the inherent dangers to both the group, and to any that happen to be sharing the road with them..

Clearly not, why are you twisting it around?

Needlessly holding up a fellow human being for selfish reasons is bad.

how do we know it was needless, they pulled into a garage, which on the basis of exaggeration, was probably the first place they could safely as a group get out of the way. Having had a read of the OPs contributions and his posting history i suspect 4miles is a tad OT.

The bit about the cyclists having a go doesn’t surprise me, attack is the best form of defence and if a car stops when you do, do you assume they are going to be pleasant or be an arse? I am sorry to say for me and i suspect most it is the latter.

Its a good job you were polite cos i recon nine dude’s and one girl in lycra would have kicked your arse.Unless your Jackie Chan,I’m hard,Bruce Lee.

Where as some grumpy old men who didn’t rebel enough in their youth believe that we should stand up for our right to block the carriageway regardless of the negative outcome..

How do you legitimise that opinion when cycling 2 abreast in groups was common practice for 50 years before cars came into mass usage?

The first Tour de France was 1903 – so group cycling must have been in place before then (my own road club was formed in 1935) but cars didn’t start being owned by the masses till after WW2 – early 50’s

So there are more cars now, yes, and fewer cyclists. But what’s the logical link there which says cyclists should be compelled to ride differently now?

Don’t forget that 2 abreast is because it’s more efficient to ride like that – there’s a very good functional reason for it. And more cars on the road does not change the functional reasons & benefits for group riding…

Which is the more selfish though? Thinking a couple of extra minutes on your journey is more important than letting cyclists decide when they feel safe sounds pretty selfish to me.

Needlessly holding up a fellow human being for selfish reasons is bad.

Even if the “selfish reason” is not wanting to be endangered or killed?

For all the taxes you pay in this country I still don’t understand why the roads are so shit. Even busy A roads are completely dangerous. The A470 is a deathtrap and those silly single carriage stone bridges that always follow sharp blind corners are ridiculous.

Which is the more selfish though? Thinking a couple of extra minutes on your journey is more important than letting cyclists decide when they feel safe sounds pretty selfish to me.

This.

Edit: you can debate all day what’s safer, what you should be doing, and whatever else. But there’s a lot of intimidation on the roads, whether you mean to do it or not, and some very real risks. It doesn’t take much to hang back and give a little room while you wait for a safe opportunity, no matter how long that is…it’s never too far away.

Group riding technique

Those of you who think riding 2 abreast is selfish – read this…

How many good reasons do you need?

It’s all just another reason for riding off road

Which is the more selfish though?

Well, that is a good question. Hard to say on the information we have I think.

I don’t know the road, maybe a street view link would be useful? But if it were 10 cyclists I’d have thought they could fairly easily melted into single file. I don’t know many roads where it’s not safe to pass single file for four miles, and if I did I really don’t think I’d cycle on them never mind lead a group there because I personally do not want to get in anyone’s way.

I pull over frequently when towing my carvan too, for the same reason. Also, if I am standing in someone’s way in the supermarket I move. All the same thing, to me.

For all the taxes you pay in this country I still don’t understand why the roads are so shit.

Well we pay less than many European countries, for a start. And many of the roads are the same layout as they were 100 years ago when people were on horseback, so of course there are issues. Use your noggin.

So there are more cars now, yes, and fewer cyclists. But what’s the logical link there which says cyclists should be compelled to ride differently now?

see my earlier gypsy trotting comment.. I see both sides of the coin.. and have already answered these points earlier in the thread..

I don’t know many roads where it’s not safe to pass single file for four miles, and if I did I really don’t think I’d cycle on them never mind lead a group there because I personally do not want to get in anyone’s way

this times a thousand..

I’m not entering into a perpetual circular argument with each new person that logs in and joins the debate..
I’m only playing devils advocate because I feel that our relationship with motorists doesn’t need any more antagonism..

It’s all just another reason for riding off road

this times a gazillion

Seems there’s a signal for ‘slow down’ – perfectly applicable for pulling into an area to allow drivers to pass, perhaps?

__________________________________________
Critical Mass Poll on Page 8 of the Kettling thread – make your voice heard!

But if it were 10 cyclists I’d have thought they could fairly easily melted into single file.

as pointed out on page 1 or 2, to safely pass 10 single file riders in one hit you do need alot of space, to pass 5 pairs you need alot less space.

The last thing you want is a car attempting the move then aborting and pulling into the group because they ran out of room. If your lucky the cyclists can get out of the way by braking, worst case you end up hitting cyclists and someone is going to hospital, and it won’t be the driver.

Seems there’s a signal for ‘slow down’ – perfectly applicable for pulling into an area to allow drivers to pass, perhaps?

and the group did pull into a garage where the OP then confronted them…..

and the group did pull into a garage where the OP then confronted them…..

Indeed, but I recall the OP stating there were a couple of other places where they could have done similar, too.

I don’t know the road, maybe a street view link would be useful? But if it were 10 cyclists I’d have thought they could fairly easily melted into single file.

I’m sure they could have. But multiple folk have suggested that makes it harder to pass them and increases danger to the group.

We don’t know the road, but even the OP said “its wide enough for two cars to pass but not two cars and a bike” so exactly where is he going to go if he starts passing a long single file of bikes and an oncoming car appears from around the bend?? (which is likely given the road is “just a bit too winding for me to pass safely“)

From the OPs own statement there was no option to pass safely – so I can’t understand people getting worked up about the roadies not letting him attempt an unsafe pass. The only realistic option was for them to pull in somewhere safe and let him past, which they eventually did.

To expect anything else is to expect them to endanger themselves for the convenience of others.