[Closed] Is it illegal to ride two abreast?

No.

Edit. Oops, missed the quote - rule 66:

66
You should

keep both hands on the handlebars except when signalling or changing gear
keep both feet on the pedals
never ride more than two abreast, and ride in single file on narrow or busy roads and when riding round bends
not ride close behind another vehicle
not carry anything which will affect your balance or may get tangled up with your wheels or chain
be considerate of other road users, particularly blind and partially sighted pedestrians. Let them know you are there when necessary, for example, by ringing your bell if you have one. It is recommended that a bell be fitted

no it's perfectly legal.

Highway code words:

You should

* keep both hands on the handlebars except when signalling or changing gear
* keep both feet on the pedals
* [b]never ride more than two abreast, and ride in single file on narrow or busy roads and when riding round bends[/b]
* not ride close behind another vehicle
* not carry anything which will affect your balance or may get tangled up with your wheels or chain
* be considerate of other road users, particularly blind and partially sighted pedestrians. Let them know you are there when necessary, for example, by ringing your bell if you have one. It is recommended that a bell be fitted

From http://www.direct.gov.uk/en/TravelAndTransport/Highwaycode/DG_069837

So wee in her busybody shoes.

Highway code, rules for cyclist 66

You should

* keep both hands on the handlebars except when signalling or changing gear
* keep both feet on the pedals
[b]* never ride more than two abreast, and ride in single file on narrow or busy roads and when riding round bends[/b]
* not ride close behind another vehicle
* not carry anything which will affect your balance or may get tangled up with your wheels or chain
* be considerate of other road users, particularly blind and partially sighted pedestrians. Let them know you are there when necessary, for example, by ringing your bell if you have one. It is recommended that a bell be fitted

Ambiguous as always.

tell her it is illegal to make up laws on a friday.

Too slow.............

I had a fascinating conversation about this with a taxi driver in the middle of the night recently.

After the "fasten seatbelt" alarm had finally got bored of reminding him to put his belt on he regaled me with tales of the iniquities of cyclists, including their vile habit of riding two abreast in Richmond Park. I noted that the speed limit in the RP is 20mph, and I usually average 20mph on a lap, so if he was stuck behind me ever he could wind his neck in. He explained that, driving a car as powerful as his it was impossible to keep it below 20mph.

It was a useful conversation in some ways, as it's always good to be reminded that I am one of the sanest people on the planet. 🙂

It is illegal to ride 'inconsiderately', and in some circumstances riding two abreast could be inconsiderate. But as noted by others, two-abreast is not illegal per se.

Chuckles at soobalias.

Most cycle training providers will recommend riding 2 abreast pretty much at all times. There was an "except on narrow roads" as above, but when doing mine (part of TCL) near Kirroughtree on what are hardly major roads there was a very definite "these roads are not narrow"!

Yeah well, I wasn't even trying.

If I'd put my mind to it... 😉

I hate it when cyclists ride two abreast, legal or not is not the issue. Common sence is the issue. Its usually dangerous, inconsiderate and likey to enrage other road users. Have you not noticed, we are not in the 1930's, there are actually lots of cars on the road, usually in a rush.

Roads are dangerous enough without us cyclists providing more obsticals for cars/lorrys/busses to dodge. Sure, in a utopian world cars would be slow and few, but back here in the real world where car drivers are frustrated, always in a rush and usually ignorant to cyclists, riding two abreast is pretty daft.

There are also a lot of very crap car drives who are quite likey to hit you if your two abreast.

Use a bit of common sence and ride safely.

thanks 🙂 right i'm off to wee in her shoes.

you love your car that much?

[i]Roads are dangerous enough without us cyclists providing more obsticals for cars/lorrys/busses to dodge. Sure, in a utopian world cars would be slow and few, but back here in the real world where car drivers are frustrated, always in a rush and usually ignorant to cyclists, riding two abreast is pretty daft.[/i]

Nope, sorry. I am not going to be intimated into single-file cowering in the gutter by your frustration and ignorance or anyone else's. If I am out on a ride with friends and clubmates and the road is not particularly busy I will ride two abreast, although, as the Highway Code makes clear, more than 2 abreast is not on. It is usually [i]not[/i] dangerous or inconsiderate to ride two abreast on minor roads, and if anyone is enraged by it that is their lookout, given the above and the provisions of the Highway Code. 🙂

I've been known to deliberatley ride two abreast in situtaions where i *know* that cocks in cars will try to squeeze through wher they shouldn't

on a narrow country lane, I might be tempted to ride single file, but really far out so a second cyclist could squeeze inside me

Speaking as a non-roadie, I also can't stand it when cyclists ride two across. There are roads where it's fine (e.g. quiet, straight, easy to overtake) but on a lot of roads it's like being stuck behind a lycra clad caravan.

But if you flipped that argument around and were driving your car along and had to slow down to follow some other car doing, say 15mph, cos it was not illegal to drive slowly, you would wonder why they didnt either pull off to let you past or speed up.

Sadly we do have to share the road, which means considerate users will have to make compromises. So cars pass us by with plenty of space and we dont piss them off by taking up loads of room and putting us in danger.

You also have to share the bridleway, I assume you ride that in a considerate manner, or do you expect other users to move out of your way ?

Anyway, why not ride off the road, its much better and more suited to a mountain bike. There are not normally cars in the woods.

Right, im off now to go and mow down two abreast darkside riders - I may spare two abreast mountain bikers now I realise there are some that ride like that.

None shall pass.

Every motorist drives two abreast whether there is one of them or not.

Also note that rule 66 quoted above says [b]should[/b], not [b]must[/b], so it is advice, not law. (This is the wording used throughout the Highway Code to distinguish laws from advice.)

So it is not illegal to ride three abreast, but if something bad happened when you were doing it, then it could be considered contributory negligence.

As any phule no, a well-mannered group of cyclists riding two abreast on a country road gives the responsibility of watching behind to the riders at the back of the group. When a car approaches from behind, the riders at the back of the group will call out "car up/back" and this will be passed up the group, usually with the instruction to "single out". When it is safe to do so the group will go to single file to allow the car to pass. This is a considerate compromise.

Drivers insiting that cyclist ride single file at all times so they can pass without being delayed at all show no such consideration or willingness to compromise. As djc1245 points out, they are wider than us to start with. 🙂

Oh, and I ride on the road, and off the road, and also walk. The main thing I don't bother doing is driving, partly because it is so inconsiderate. 😉

There are clearly a few people out there who think "cycling" means chucking your bike in the car and driving somewhere. I do it too but it's nice to have more options than that.

Trimix is on a wind up.

Yeah?

Again from Highway code.

163
Overtake only when it is safe and legal to do so. You should

-give motorcyclists, cyclists and horse riders at least as much room as you would when overtaking a car (see Rules 211-215)

Which in my mind means using the other side of the road to where cyclist is, so even if 2 abreast, it's immaterial. Mainly common sense, but common sense seems not to be able to get in to some cars, and on to some bikes.

Of course, the [i]should[/i] in the Highway code means it is just good practice to drive/ride that way (derived from various laws). It's only an actual law in the Highway code when it says [i]must[/i] or [i]must not[/i]. But not driving to the [i]should[/i] is then possibly not driving with due care and attention, or similar.

And the highway code does change, so if someone starts "quoting" it to you, ask them when the last time they actually looked at it. Most likely the last time most people have looked at it was when they took their test.

Agreed (to an extent 🙂 ) Trimix, lots of people do things that annoy me, and getting stuck behind a cyclist when it is tricky to pass is one of them, more so when there is a group but tough, frankly.
I don't own the road and no matter what kind of rush I think I am in I have to share it.
Three of us ride together (when we are fit anyway) and are often three abreast filling whole country lanes, but we tend to go single file when we hear a car. Thats just us though and I am sure we still hold some people up so I always say thanks with a wave and smile, but don't apologise.

Very well put Tracker1972.

On a side note, I have never understood why some motorists accuse cyclists of "thinking they own the road". Any cyclist thinking he owns the road is [i]clearly[/i] delusional and I don't think many such cyclists exist. What the motorists seem to mean is actually "why do these people not understand that [b]I[/b] own the road?". But hey. 🙂

Cycles do not cause traffic obstruction - they are traffic. People tend to rant at cyclists, when they take up less space on the road, and usually travel quicker, than tractors, diggers or horses. Cyclists are just a vunerable target, so despite being in 'the right', be careful and considerate.

On roads which are narrow enough that to overtake a cyclist a car will have to move into the oncoming lane then it is actually more considerate for a group of cyclists to be riding two abreast, as this means the group will be half as long as if they were single file. It's only worth singling out if this will allow cars to pass without having to move into oncoming traffic.

Very good point robh. Personally ride two abreast on back roads, moving to single file when a car approaches. Main roads generally single file though.

To all on here thinking that two abreast is wrong, can I ask:

1. How old are you (in minutes please)
2. How many of those minutes in your life have been wasted by being stuck behind two cyclists*

Jesus. Two abreast sometimes is inappropriate (and inconsiderate) - but really, I find some roads users impatience really quite unbelievable when they've been held up by a minute or two.

* It's rhetorical, before you start...

Speaking as a non-roadie, I also can't stand it when cyclists ride two across. There are roads where it's fine (e.g. quiet, straight, easy to overtake) but on a lot of roads it's like being stuck behind a lycra clad caravan.

But presumably it's OK for there to be 20 plus riders strung out single file so you can have a half hearted attempt at overtaking, only to find there's a car approaching the other way and then just pull left straight into the riders you're along side? Remind me not to ride on the road when you're in a hurry to get to the nearest trail centre....

One of the safest ways to enbsure rider safety is riding two abreast. I tend to find that even only singling out is to "show willing" to a motorist who still has no greater overtaking advantage.

I would think riding two abreast is far safer for the cyclist. A motorist is more likely to risk your life as a cyclist by trying to squeeze through a gap that may or not be big enough if you are riding in single file. To give you the cyclist enough space (not sure about how much in the UK but here in Germany it is legislated at over 2m) a motorist would have to go onto the opposite carriageway to overtake you safely anyway so it shouldn't make any difference if the cyclists were single-file or two a breast.

Around Hebeden bridge last night there was a small group who were riding two abreast and taking turns for the lead. Thing is- they were taking along time overtaking each other (i.e. riding alongside chatting) and not shoulder-checking or indicating before swinging out. I followed them for quite a while and I do think riding two abreast on country roads is alittle dangerous- non-cyclists will get frustrated. Frustration leads to irrational decisions IMO.

Not illegal but in busy traffic I don't see what benefit it has to the cyclist. I only ever ride next to other cyclists on a social ride so we can chat and if we went into a high traffic area we would be concentrating on things around us rather than talking about what tyre for.. etc :o)

All it does in high volume traffic is slow everything down to the cyclists speed and raise tensions with the other road users.

Rarely do roadie stuff in groups but do often deliberatley hold up cars by being out as far as if there were two of us.
Sadly over time I have learnt that I need to do this to stop cars trying to overtake me on blind bends etc as they are often in such a rush that my safety is not one of their concerns.
When a car beeps me for doing this I am actually relieved to know that I just stopped someone (impatient) from potentially killing me by attempting a dangerous overtake.
Certainly they have been slowed down for perhaps 10 -25 seconds or so but my safety is far more important
Those of you who are arguing against this clearly do not ride/commute on roads and understand why cyclists have to do this.
Sad that even on cycling forum we have the car is KING mentality and anyone who dares to go slower than you is just a nuisance rather than another road user excercising their legal right to use the highways we all pay for

hora - that sounds like a steady chaingang. When you're at the back of the inside line about to move out, you've a good idea if there is a car there. But, because the line needs to continue, riders will continue moving into the line whatever is behind them.

We were going through and off at up to 35mph last Saturady. At that sort of speed, I'll be f***ed if I'm going to wait for a car to overtake - I'd be out of the back and on my own for the rest of the day.

I agree that car drivers like to think that a few seconds is s significant effect on their journey time, but this comes more from a general car related mentality: people climb into their cars thinking only of their destination, and not the elements of the journey in between. There is a cultural acceptance that it is OK to be become frustrated the moment anything causes a deviation to that fixated mindset; it's a form of arrogance borne of the idea that "motoring = freedom = right to go where I want when I want".

ourmaninthenorth totally understand but that means a car driver could argue a cyclist pulled out without any warning. Swings both ways.

Trimix - Member
I hate it when cyclists ride two abreast, legal or not is not the issue. Common sence is the issue. Its usually dangerous, inconsiderate and [i]likey to enrage other road users.[/i] Have you not noticed, we are not in the 1930's, there are actually lots of cars on the road, usually in a rush.

yep' round these parts i've noticed pedestrians have started carrying horns to toot and fake engine revving whenever they see cyclists two abreast - sometimes they hide in the hedge just to let cyclists go past and play games like stand near big puddles just waiting for groups of cyclists to soak them - inconsiderate road users

Ah motorists. 15 seconds travelling at 25mph when they could be doing 60mph causes them to boil their piss.

One of the narrow lanes I regularly use is a rat run that motorists use to skip motorway junctions and 'avoid' the rush hour traffic. I pull over at every passing place to let people through, only to swing straight back pass them again at the junction with the main road, full of stationary traffic.

Yet if i were to cruise down the lane at a steady 15mph, causing the motorists piled up behind me [u]absoluetly no overall delay whatsoever[/u] I'd get mown down in an instant. Motorists seem unable to prevent themselves pulling all kinds of stunts to get past a cyclist, only to join the back of a queue of stationary traffic and the cyclists to sail through.

Speed limit in my village is 30mph. I know from the speed trap sign that I tend to cruise through at 28mph on my road bike riding to work. This isn't willy waving, thats just a comfortable speed the bike seems to do of its own accord. Yet nobody will sit behind me, they absolutely HAVE to get past the cyclist, even if it means swerving round parked cars and children walking to school at 40-50mph, dicing with oncoming traffic or getting past me, only to find they can't get through the availible gap in oncoming traffic, so cutting me up and slamming the anchors on. If I ride assertively to prevent them doing this, you can often palpably hear the piss boiling.

I don't understand where this manic, rabid impatience comes from, its not like operating a motor vehicle is hard work.

ourmaninthenorth totally understand but that means a car driver could argue a cyclist pulled out without any warning. Swings both ways.

Noted, and I sort of see your point, though in the situation I describe, the cyclist moving from the inside to the outside lines isn't moving any further across the path of the car. The riders are two abreast, and that is maintained by the "through and off". So, though a driver may think a rider is pulling out without looking, in fact he is probably highly aware of the car (having been checking over his shoulder while on the inside line for the last man to move past on the outside), and will also be aware of a car. Most riders will also in this situaiton still give a shout of "car up" (up your arse) so the line is aware of its presence.

Your point is really much the same as ADH's - people in cars can't bear to be "held up".

All of the language of journeys is about how easy or not it is to make progress: "the traffic was heavy", "those lights never stay on green for the long", "I got stuck behind a tractor/caravan/cyclist/horse rider". The thought process when getting in a car is not "I have 20 miles to drive, I ought to set off with enough time to reach my destination even if I can't average 60mph", but one of "I have to go to pick up the kids from school at 3pm. It's 10 miles away. the road is a 60mph limit. That should take me 10 minutes. Oh my god there's a person on bicycle holding me up, stopping me from getting to my destination at the speed and time that I want to".

I don't understand where this manic, rabid impatience comes from, its not like operating a motor vehicle is hard work.

It's because it isn't physically hard that people spend too much time unaware of their surroundings or the implcations of their actions.

Yet if i were to cruise down the lane at a steady 15mph, causing the motorists piled up behind me absoluetly no overall delay whatsoever

Dave C, you are crediting rush hour motorists in Bristol with a politeness that they do not possess.

It's obvious that we have to share the roads

It's nice to be considerate

It works both ways

Ride two abreast when safe

If a car is behind you it's easy peasy to just drop down to single file to make it easier for them to get past

On the occasion when it would be dangerous for a vehicle to overtake then ride in a defensive but un-confrontational manner, they have a metal box around them, you don't

Wave in a friendly manner as they go past

Live a long life in harmony with the world

Width restrictors also bring out the "gottagetpastatallcostsotherwisetheentireuniversewillceasetoexistand nevermindthatthere'sanotherrathermorevulnerableroaduserintheway" gene in motorists on my way to work, which only means that I open their rear passenger doors or bootlid about 15 seconds later as they queue in traffic about 300 metres down the road.
On the other hand there was a group of road riders out near Peaslake a couple of weeks ago who were riding 1-3 abreast without any indication of realisation of what was behind them, but then they made a big deal of attempting to wave me through on a completely blind S bend which I knew about and had no intention of overtaking in a suicide manner.

Junkyard I commute every day, I also drive a car and do not have a view that either has more right to the road. Alas it is a sad fact that some car drivers and some cyclists actually ride with the purpose of inconveiniencing the other which doesnt really help anyone. You can ride defensivly without taking up the whole road you know.

Its a bit of a deviation from the OP about legalities of riding 2 abreast anyway.

Dave C, you are crediting rush hour motorists in Bristol with a politeness that they do not possess.

And the ability of other cars to materialize out of thin air, to join the back of the queue. There are no turnings or other roads ajoining.

Can I point out something more relevant about this thread? The title. I love to ride two breasts. ****in love it 8)

I am with ADH on this . The nuber of times I get carsd impatiently overtaking then stopping in a queue 50 m up the road while I sail past them again is untrue. staying behind the cyclist would cost them no time and save them petrol

[i]"and usually travel quicker, than tractors, diggers"[/i]
How many decades ago was this?

Overtaking cyclist in a tractor is the much harder on a conventional (non high speed) tractor as you may only be able to go 5-10mph faster than most roadies seem to go along at

[i]"motorists accuse cyclists of "thinking they own the road". Any cyclist thinking he owns the road is clearly delusional and I don't think many such cyclists exist. What the motorists seem to mean is actually "why do these people not understand that I own the road?"[/i]

Don't cyclists, horses and pedestrians have a legal right to the road? whereas motorvehicles have to pay for that right with Vehicle Excise Duty (not road tax), although since the fuel 'crisis' of around 2000 agricultural vehicles don't have to pay it (but still have to have the VED disc and display it)

I don't mind riding two up but keep an eye/ear for cars and move to single file way ahead before a car arrives.

Busy roads-forget it-ride single file.

Tell the busy body to **^&*^& off.

MTFU?

Nick - all good points well put.

I think the "share the road" capaign has real value, and certainly does cut both ways.

I've also adopted a rather more relaxed approach to the sort of weirdness TJ describes - if they want to try to overtake and then find themselves alongside me, stationary at the back of a traffic queue, with half their car obstructing the oncoming lane, they're more than welcome.

I'm not bothered with the right vs licence to use the road - we're all on it here and now, so let's try to get along..! 🙂

Depends on whose breasts they are and how broadminded you feel

maxray

Junkyard ..... You can ride defensivly without taking up the whole road you know.

dave c - Member

Yet if i were to cruise down the lane at a steady 15mph, causing the motorists piled up behind me absoluetly no overall delay whatsoever
Except that they would have entered the queue further back and as such had to queue longer.

Were you being ironic?
If no one overtakes them how are they further back?

NICK view is spot on IMHO

Depends on whose breasts they are and how broadminded you feel

I'm always up for firing a salvo/broadside across anyones breasts. I dont want my tombstone to say 'he didnt manage to shag Kate Arnold or the others with the nice breasts' 😥

Were you being ironic?
If no one overtakes them how are they further back?

The terminology of the Highway Code works as follows:

You Must = It's the law.
You Should = Advisory.

Therefore it isn't against the law to ride two-abreast.

After years of wondering why roadies ride two (or more abreast) I've recently found that if we ride single-file drivers will usually come past, often too close, when there's oncoming traffic. Riding two-abreast means there isn't usually enough room so they don't overtake when there is oncoming traffic.

I'm not commenting on which is safer though, but it does seem to stop drivers squeezing past your elbow.

[i]I dont want my tombstone to say 'he didnt manage to shag Kate Arnold or the others with the nice breasts' [/i]

Dude, you are [b]on fire[/b] this week. I just don't know how your brain keeps it up. 8)

I don't think the space taken by 2 abreast is significantly different to single file. As a cyclist, when I'm in the car I will always make the point of waiting to overtake cyclists in the same way as I like to be overtaken, leaving enough space which usually means moving onto the other carriageway. If you have to do that, you have to wait until it's clear in which case, 1,2, 3 abreast - what's the difference?

The problem is perception, most drivers don't think the same way and they think they can squeeze past a single cyclist, hence when they see 2 abreast and can't it 'boils their piss'

What frightens me is the reaction of drivers behind me when I'm in a car behind a cyclist. 'Why's he going so slow! Why doesn't he overtake! I'll get really close up behind him to show how annoyed I am - maybe I'll gesticulate too!' - so that when I do overtake in a safe manner - the ****t behind me almost inevitably learns nothing about why I delayed overtaking and worse, feels he's already been delayed so he's F88ked now if he's going to wait behind the cyclist and get a further delay! So he ploughs past risking the cyclist even more.

You can't win!

Theotherjonv Yep I've seen that too and a few times people have tried to overtake my car whilst I'm waiting for a safe opportunity to pass the cyclist.
As already pointed out, overtaking bikes you're supposed to leave the same amount of room as you'd leave a car so a single bike or 2 abreast is no different. I hadn't thought about the single file in large numbers actually making overtaking more difficult, someone should point this out to motorists.

7 YEARS ago when i was the road club .clubrun captain i was or the 7 of us out on a cold windy quiet day on not to busy a road was repromanded by some police who were held up behind us for a few seconds we was riding 2 abrest, so i contacted the ministry of transport, and they replied that while not illegal to ride side by side they hoped that cyclists would single out on busy roads.
so i contacted them again to ask for a definition of busy roads and they replied there was none, they just hoped cyclists and motorists would have common sence and "get along together"

ow and one more time when a large gang of us was out a motorist shouted out of his sunroof that riding when side by side was illegal, and one of the guys said when he got home he should find a member of his family who could read and he would find out it was not illegal

surprisingly he did not like that

MMMMMmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm...
[img] [/img]

In decades of riding I've never had issue with this.
It sort of comes as second nature when to swing into single file or stay as you are. Probably comes from years of club runs.
Problem is wether you're in the right or wrong if you don't assess the drivers behind you, you could end up getting hurt.
And from the cases that I have heard of people getting in accidents, the drivers of the cars at fault haven't been baseball cap wearing Corsa drivers but more often nice old folks driving oversized cars that flap when facing anything in the road.

If a car is behind you it's easy peasy to just drop down to single file to make it easier for them to get past

it is when there's only two of you. but in that case you should really be in single file.

if there's, say, a dozen it takes ages to single out and holds up the cars behind even more

Takes a couple of seconds. As soon as a shout goes out the rider nearer the kerb eases forward and the outside rider just slips in, what we talking? up to two seconds.
At least we don't hold up the traffic like horses, who never ever move into single file and no one seems to mind???

Yes I agree completely sockpuppet, they really shouldn't be allowed on the road at all.

[puzzled face] i was trying to go for the 'pro-two-abreast' vibe. seems i missed it. [/face]

for larger groups, two-abreast is often best, but then we do tend to avoid busier roads by and large. a really long single file just makes drivers overtake half of the group, get hung out and then barge into the middle of the line - not a happy scenario!

although, tbh, i find i get far more abuse when out on the road on my own that in a group. my current love-to-hate activity is the "rush to overtake on the way towards a red light, slam on to stop and then get in the way."

I reckon the worst drivers around at the moment are 25-35 year old women and blokes about 60. The women are very agressive towards anything that is in their way and the blokes just don't give a shit either way as they've just left the pub.

Approaching Burton-on-Kendal in the lakes yesterday- circa 30 road riders- not even attempting to filter/keep to the left- they just filled the whole lane and TBH ****ing idiots were candidates for an accident. They werent pegging it either so no excuse. Idiots? Its a 50/60mph limit- imagine rounding a bend to find someone ambling along at 10mph next to the white line?

I hungback for a fair while until I found a long stretch but seriously, I couldnt work out if they were making a group-critical mass protest or they were just plain idiots. Country roads and idiots, killing people since the dawn of time.

bend to find someone ambling along at 10mph next to the white line?

Or a horse or a tractor or a queue of stationary vehicles.

Surely you should be driving within your stopping distance?

Minimize risk?

which only means that I open their rear passenger doors or bootlid about 15 seconds later as they queue in traffic about 300 metres down the road.

I REALLY must remember to do this next time.....

I don't do it very often, but I do make sure that there's a very good escape route beforehand. Its reserved for really proper displays which require a round of applause - like the guy who cut me properly into a kerb at a width restriction and then turned, smiled and gave me the finger - he was stuck in a queue of traffic about half a mile further on with absolutely nowhere to go. I was very polite though, checked that there wasn't anything that would be let free by opening the door, popped my head in and suggested that if he was going to do that to someone in future it'd be a really good idea to make sure that he wouldn't be stuck in a traffic jam 5 minutes down the road, waved and cycled off.

despite what the highwaycode says, the 'narrow road' thing is a bit of a red herring imo. if the lane of a road is so narrow that if a motorist overtook you (allowing a safe width) then he would be in the collision path of an oncoming motorist (even if the cyclist were hugging the hedgeline!) then it makes no difference where the outermost cyclist is placed. i commute mostly alone on the narrow lanes round ashford in kent,, and i KNOW FOR SURE that i am safer when i rider wide ESPECIALLY ON NARROW COUNTRY LANES. this is especially true when rounding left hand bends, when you can both see and be seen very much earlier by oncoming and rearcoming vehicles. the only place i would be tight left or single file is a very tight right bend.

Holy thread resurrection, batman!

single file,2abreast,3,4..
doesnt matter,at the end of the day position yourself in a way which forces the cardriver to overtake you safely.
the moment you "assume" the car behind will only overtake when its safe to do so may be your last..
sod holding em up, yourlife is worth more than them getting to the next queue of traffic 10seconds sooner..

in fact, if John Forester and John Franklin are to be believed, then the norrower the road, then speaking from the point of view of the cyclist's safetly rather than from the point of view of not delaying motorists by more than the statutary 20 seconds, the narrower the road, the wider a cyclist should position themselves. But lets not bother ourselves unduly with cyclists safety shall we? Nahh..

in fact, if John Forester and John Franklin are to be believed, then the norrower the road, then speaking from the point of view of the cyclist's safetly rather than from the point of view of not delaying motorists by more than the statutary 20 seconds, the narrower the road, the wider a cyclist should position themselves. But lets not bother ourselves unduly with cyclists safety shall we? Nahh..