Subscribe now and choose from over 30 free gifts worth up to £49 - Plus get £25 to spend in our shop
Cyclists in the right or wrong here?
My take is that there is a perfectly good overtaking lane so what is the issue?
Even if they were riding single file then motorists obeying the Highway Code would be obliged to use the overtaking lane anyway to give them sufficient clearance.
they're technically in the right, then, but personally i wouldn't be taking the risk on what's clearly a faurly busy dual carriageway with fast-moving traffic.
Cyclist perfectly in the right - that road is not wide enough for two cars and a bike so a single bike should be in the middle of the lane anyway. Tosser in van, bikes in the right.
Edit - where would you be then flatboy? Itsa 30 mph road
The cyclists are being uncourteous to other road users.
They are guests on the road and shouldn't act like knobs.
I drive defensively (from years of riding a motorbike). Annoys the hell out of my wife. She works on the basis of 'if you have the right of way it's the other persons fault if they crash into you'.
Personally I wouldn't drive two abreast any more than I'd pay attention to an indicator.
But I don't care how other people chose to die. Being right must be a huge comfort.
so 5th - were would you be riding on that road?
They are guests on the road and shouldn't act like knobs.
🙄
They are guests on the road and shouldn't act like knobs.
[url= http://farm5.staticflickr.com/4083/5055032357_69d1d1be72.jp g" target="_blank">
[url= http://www.flickr.com/photos/54644045@N08/5055032357/ ]OBVIOUS TROLL IS OBVIOUS[/url] by [url= http://www.flickr.com/people/54644045@N08/ ]JasonStarcraft[/url], on Flickr
Perfectly within their rights.
Is that a 40 limit?
I'd guess that fat boy is jsut unhappy as he couldn't ride a bike for any distance at all.
so 5th - were would you be riding on that road?
In a car.
trickydisco - They are guests on the road, just like every other road user.
And they were acting like knobs. No question about it.
I'd happily ride 2 abreast there - it's plenty wide enough and not particularly busy, well within the guidance of the highway code. I swear I'm going to carry a highway code with me when riding in future, there's too many morons out there with a false belief that they're in the right.
Nay for me.
Though my view is slightly clouded by harbouring the prejudice that anyone with a camera on their bike is probably antagonistic bell-end 😀
Really GG?
Bikes have to get out of the way of cars do they?
According to standard defensive riding techniques one should adopt the primary position - occupy your lane. there is not enough room there for two cars and a bike so you adpopt ther oad positioning that forces cars to overtake properly so as not to get squeezed into the edge and also to give you an escape route if required
Its a busy looking road but they are in their rights.Obviously expecting confrontation with the camera filming it all.Is it really worth it if you run the risk of ending up in a coffin? No time for silly arguements once that happens and the white van man will have the final say.
Either that or they die young of high blood pressure from all the grief they have given themselves!
anyone with a camera on their bike is probably antagonistic bell-end
This.
GlitterGary - Member
trickydisco - They are guests on the road, just like every other road user.And they were acting like knobs. No question about it.
Loathed as I am to feed the troll.
Cyclists have a right to use the road and a right to ride two abreast. It is motorists who are there by license.
Even though its allowed in the highway code, I personally wouldnt of ridded two abreast on that road . Judging by his moobs and gut the van driver could do with getting on a bike now and then!
Cyclist perfectly in the right - that road is not wide enough for two cars and a bike so a single bike should be in the middle of the lane anyway. Tosser in van, bikes in the right.
I'm sure being 'technically right' will be a great excuse when a Policeman knocks on the door to deliver the bas news to loved ones........
When will some of the cycling fraternity just wake up and admit it, we are at the bottom of the transport food chain and we can mumble under our breaths all we want, most motorists would be pissed off by riding like that because all it appears to most is two blokes taking up far too much room than they need.
If you want to ride two abreast and talk about the highway code go and find a nice country back lane, not a dual carriageway, which is hardly the most enlightening place to ride in the first place...
There;s a meteoric rise in cyclist filming themselves as they feel it offers some 'protection', whilst it may help apportion blame in certain cases it doesn't stop a ****in big truck running you over...
This wouldn't happen if they'd been taxed and were displaying their cycling proficiency certificates.
why do they need to cycle two abreast? the bloke in the van has clearly got too much time on his hands though hasn't he. they've done nothing legally wrong but why not just ride single file to help keep the traffic flowing?
as my motorbike instructor used to say, there's no point in being dead right.
They were in the right. Whether or not it's their best course of action or not is a different argument.
Are they safer two-abreast in the middle of the lane asserting their position, or in the gutter where people are going to try force their way past potentially dangerously close? Difficult call.
Laws/whose in the right doesnt matter when you have already contributed to getting into a coffin earlier than expected.
They didn't seem to be impeding the flow of traffic, there was no alternative cycle path, perfectly within their rights IMO. As TJ suggests, whether single file or 2 abreast in that location makes no difference.
I do wonder what was going on in the van driver's head to make him stew about it for a few metres, pull over and get out to remonstrate. With that sort of anger he probably shouldn't be in control of a vehicle.
anyone with a camera on their bike is probably antagonistic bell-end
Obviously expecting confrontation with the camera filming it all.
Apparently lots of road riders have a camera running all the time when they are on a bike. It's a growing trend as people are subject to dangerous driving and road rage incidents.
Some taxis, buses and commercial vehicles do the same thing.
Thats an urban 30 mph limit road
You are safer riding it the middle of the lane than in the gutter.
Once again stw petrol heads show how little they actually understand cycling. I am getting used to it now but I find the anti cyclist nonsense on here rather sad.
https://www.iam.org.uk/news/latest-news/491-cyclists-take-prime-position-says-iam-book
Cyclists technically have the right to ride two abreast. However this does not automatically make it a good idea.
Practically, we all need to get along as well as we can, not follow the letter of the law to the annoyance of others.
This kind of attitude is what annoys the living crap out of other people TJ 🙂
why not just ride single file to help keep the traffic flowing?
Because that would only keep the traffic flowing if they also rode in the gutter and the motorists ignored the Highway Code by squeezing past in the same lane.
as my motorbike instructor used to say, there's no point in being dead right.
I agree with others (including TJ 😯 ) that riding single file in the gutter is a lot more likely to get you killed in that situation.
They didn't seem to be impeding the flow of traffic
really??
You didn't hear the car hit the horn at the other car for "swerving into the fast lane"
I wonder why?
A ball roll out into it's path?
A flock of Geese started to cross the road
Maybe Robocop was breakdancing in lane one?
None of the above, simply two dickheads deliberately antagonising motorists so they can upload it to youtube is of course the correct answer.
Really GG?Bikes have to get out of the way of cars do they?
Yes, of course they do, when they are holding up traffic by driving selfishly. I know it's acceptable to be selfish these days, by holding up trains because you couldn't be arsed to buy a ticket, but some people so still have some shred of decency and self awareness.
If they moved over to and rode single breast then none of this would have happened and everyone would be happy.
Oh, and for the sanctimonious ones, the only troll on here is the OP for posting that video. 😉
Judgement call according to HCode (66):
never ride more than two abreast, and ride in single file on narrow or busy roads and when riding round bends
WVM was being an idiot and drove dangerously. Cyclists probably would have been better off single file on such a busy road. So no-one covered themselves in glory there
[TJ - following on from your comments yesterday about following the rules, the HC also states that cyclists should wear a helmet :wink:]
TandemJeremy - Member
Thats an urban 30 mph limit roadYou are safer riding it the middle of the lane than in the gutter.
Though i tend to make decisions on personal safety myself rather than assuming something i read in a book is the best option, the link you've posted contradicts your point:
How to be a better cyclist advises cyclists to stay nearer but not close to the kerb on long, even stretches, but where safe and appropriate to do so, to assert themselves (such as when approaching a side road), pushing out into the road and making themselves visible to drivers.
GlitterGaryYes, of course they do, when they are holding up traffic by driving selfishly. I
Bikes do not hold up traffic they are traffic. are you saying the bikes should get off the road then? riding in the gutter is dangerous and there is not enough room for two cars and a bike there so the bike should be in the centre of the lane.
do yo ever actually ride a bike?
Can anyone explain why they think riding single file in the gutter is safer in that situation?
(Contrary to advice in Cyclecraft, Bikability and even the Institute for Advanced Motoring)
The van driver is clearly a tool for haranguing other road users on a busy carriageway and for throwing his weight around.
Having said that, I wouldn't ride two abreast on a road, even if the HC said it was cool to do so.
I'd be waiting for this sort of thing to happen, or something worse.
Riding in the gutter is clearly a bad move. Contrary to suggestions above, though, there's plenty of space on that road for a cyclist to be a safe distance from the kerb with cars passing in both lanes.
How to be a better cyclist advises cyclists to stay nearer but not close to the kerb on long, even stretches, but where safe and appropriate to do so, to assert themselves (such as when approaching a side road), pushing out into the road and making themselves visible to drivers.
theflatboy: but that's exactly what they are doing!?
They are approaching a hazard (roundabout) so they are asserting control over their lane, in line with that advice.
The reality is that single file still wouldn't work here as a car would still have to overtake by crossing into the outside lane - which it should do anyway BTW. Bottom line, bl@@dy dangerous riding on busy dual carriage ways. There is no need to cycle in the gutter, but even in the middle of the lane, you are in trouble if two cars approach at speed.
You didn't hear the car hit the horn at the other car for "swerving into the fast lane"
That would be poor driving then.
If they moved over to and rode single breast then none of this would have happened and everyone would be happy.
The thing a lot of posters seem to be missing here is that an overtaking car (or van!)would still have had to move partly or fully into the outside lane to pass a single bike. Are you guys saying cycling should not be allowed in that location?
Once again stw petrol heads show how little they actually understand cycling.
See TJ, jumping to conclusions with your blinkers on here. I've never even started a car, let alone driven one and have no intention of ever doing so. I believe you have, so you are more of a petrol head than myself. In my eyes you might as well be Jeremy Clarkson.
I have however spent years riding motorcycles, and bicycles on the road, so am fully aware of how to conduct myself on the road.
Like others have said, it's no good being in the right if you are flattened by a truck (or a big man in a van!).
Those cyclists were being selfish, that's the top and bottom of it. There was no need to be, there are enough idiots on the road without self righteous cyclists adding to the numbers.
[b]Bikes do not hold up traffic they are traffic[/b]
THIS! ^^
It's the responsibility of the passing vehicle to make a safe overtake. If they can't do that, they should stay where they are.
This is what people forget. Will 10,20,30 seconds really make a difference to your journey. No. If you're a tawt you may think it does though.
did I say ride in the gutter? no, no i didn't. you assumed that's what i meant and you know what assume did, don't you.
if they rode single file, away from the gutter there would be plenty of room for cars to pass safely, it's a nice wide road (just look at it).
the difference is that the car and van drivers wouldn't be getting pissed off with them, swerving in front of them as the van did, another car sounds it's horn. why needlessly upset people in big metal objects?
The only possible problem I can see here is the cyclists are pootling. I think if you want to use the road you have an obligation to at least try and match traffic speed.
Re single file vs 2 abreast, as has already been pointed out it's a non-issue. Correct overtaking makes no distinction.
[i]Once again stw petrol heads show how little they actually understand cycling. I am getting used to it now but I find the anti cyclist nonsense on here rather sad.[/i]
Having never driven to work, and clocked up 100,000+ miles just cycling to and from work, could you show all the anti-cycling nonsense please? (and not the stuff that is plainly written tongue in cheek), because I can't see anything particularly outrageous being said.
THIS! ^^It's the responsibility of the passing vehicle to make a safe overtake. If they can't do that, they should stay where they are.
This is what people forget. Will 10,20,30 seconds really make a difference to your journey. No. If you're a tawt you may think it does though.
Plenty of ****s around. If you want to annoy one into doing something stupid then that's fine. Just don't pretend it's not in your control.
[i]Obviously expecting confrontation with the camera filming it all.[/i]
That is such [u]utter bollocks.[/u]
My words to the van driver - "Are you the f*in police?" not "sorry" that's for sure.
Ian - just read gary glitters posts.and others who want the cyclist to get out of the way and ride in the gutter where they are unsafe.
When people start coming over about to give it large just bin the bike and front up! Mouthy ****, if he's so bothered about being held up why then pullover to have a go?
People like that just want dropping!!
Anyhow we went past a load of roadies on Sunday and they were four abreast!!
Like others have said, it's no good being in the right if you are flattened by a truck (or a big man in a van!).
How exactly are they in MORE danger by riding two abreast and taking control of the lane? White Van Man clearly saw them and was forced to take appropriate action - though he clearly didn't like it.
Do you honestly think it would be safer to be riding single file at the kerb while a "truck" or "a big man in a van" squeezes past without leaving his lane??
Those cyclists were being selfish, that's the top and bottom of it.
Right - so they should be unselfish and put themselves in greater danger so motorists behind them don't have the frightful inconvenience of changing lanes?
Would you feel the same if they were just a slow car? Or a tractor?
GlitterGaryI have however spent years riding motorcycles, and bicycles on the road, so am fully aware of how to conduct myself on the road.
clearly not if you think the bikes should ride in the gutter to get out of the way.
This has always confused me about certain road riders. They think they are in a Pelaton or on a stage of the Tour and they are important.
I once took offence at a group of road riders in Surrey once which turned into an interesting confrontation.
For over 1/2mile a large group of road cyclings blocked the whole of our 'lane'- fine I could wait. Then a couple weaved out into the oncoming side of the road. Even on the straight that I was going to use to overtake (that offered enough forward visibility).
It felt like they were deliberating doing this so they could get a 'rise' out of a motorist. I got passed (safely) and after I was enough I passed I beeped the horn once out of annoyance. This was immediately (too quickly) met with fingers, coming on then ****er you name it. So I stopped. The verbal abuse was ridiculous and pathetic. They came across as almost rabid. Idiots. Interestingly I could see a few within the group didn't want to participate etc.
I can see why on a winding road you might swerve out to block someone trying a risky overtaking manevour that might end up with a swift move over and cyclists hurt but this wasn't one of these occasions.
Mountain bikers on the road are totally different. Maybe its a 'victim/chip' mindset that some cyclists have. Or maybe self-importance?
Plenty of **** around. If you want to annoy one into doing something stupid
Stupid people will do something stupid whatever you do. If you get annoyed waiting 30 seconds to pass a cyclist, then you should go get some Prozac.
I don't ride down the middle of my lane, as that would be selfish when riding alone, but nor do I cower in the gutter. It makes me cringe when I see people 1ft or less from the kerb. I'm normally in the inside wheeltrack or thereabouts, and doing a reasonable speed. Make yourself big and obvious, and be confident. It's rare I have any problems.
clearly not if you think the bikes should ride in the gutter to get out of the way.
No one has ever said this, you misguided old fool.
For this reason, I am out.
the only people to mention riding in the gutter are the people arguing against it. you're creating an argument out of nothing by your sheer inability to realise that you are not always right and that occasionally there is 'another way' of doing things.
Regarding all the stuff on this thread about cyclists being selfish and annoying motorists, I think you'd find that cyclists who are worried about annoying motorists and and get intimidated to the side of the road are generally the ones who end up dead.
I don't set out to rile anyone up, but I'll happily annoy the hell out of anyone if I'm in the right and it keeps me safe.
I'd never ride in the gutter - ever. If a car is in front I'll temper my speed to sit behind and/or go up and over (around) never under.
No one has ever said this, you misguided old fool.
Actually you did. Repeatedly.
GrahamS - MemberHow to be a better cyclist advises cyclists to stay nearer but not close to the kerb on long, even stretches, but where safe and appropriate to do so, to assert themselves (such as when approaching a side road), pushing out into the road and making themselves visible to drivers.
theflatboy: but that's exactly what they are doing!?
They are approaching a hazard (roundabout) so they are asserting control over their lane, in line with that advice.
"nearer to the kerb" on a "long, even stretch" does not mean two abreast, does it?
and the "side road" mention, i take to mean to avoid cars trying to fly past you and cut you up on left turns, not riding in the middle of a lane near a roundabout.
I'll happily annoy the hell out of anyone if I'm in the right and it keeps me safe
a risky game to play.
GrahamS- 6/10 for trolling. 0/10 for being able to read. X
GG - you want the cyclist to move over to let a car past without having to move out of the lane - that would put the cyclist in the gutter in an unsafe road position.
where would you be riding on that road?
the thing is, the only way those cyclists could ride to allow cars to overtake them without going into the overtaking lane is to ride in the gutter, so you are saying that they should ride in the gutter. single file, taking the correct high line would still force cars into the overtaking lane, so whats the difference between that and rding two abreast?
as for the argument that the car had to swerve to avoid them, nearly causing a crash. Maybe, just maybe the driver of that car should open his ****ing eyes?
cyclists perfectly in the right.
Me and my mates ride two abreast pretty much all the time, however if we're on a narrow country road and a car comes up behind we always fan out into single file, often we get a thank you wave off the drivers, sometimes we get the finger. nice people and tossers in all walks of live!
EDIT: I cycle on a road like that every day for my commute, as a rule of thumb I keep a line about 50 cms further out than the drain covers on the side of the road, so about a metre, maybe further out, cars have to pull into oncoming traffic to get past me. I very rarely, in fact I've never had anyabuse for doing that.
I can't stand these militant cyclists who go around annoying motorists deliberately under the cover of the highway code. If I came across those two I think i'd bite.
I think i'd overtake safely, gradually slow down to reduce the cyclists speed to an annoying level then speed up every time they go to overtake.
perfectly legal but annoying.
I can't believe people think the safest place to be is to the LEFT of this guy:
[img] 
[/img]
Really?
As for the road being wide enough to ride single file without being in the gutter. Take a look.
I'd say "not in the gutter" means your wheels where his left wheels are, along the edge of the S. If you rode there then I can't see how he'd get around you without going into the other lane unless he passed waaaay too close.
I'll happily annoy the hell out of anyone if I'm in the right and it keeps me safe
Dude. That is NOT safe. From experience the angriest motorists with cyclists tend to be slight/podgy short white men who don a 2ton suit of armour that gives them omni potency for once.
a risky game to play.
I do it precisely because in road safety terms it's less risky. Unless you mean the risk of some idiot confronting me in which case maybe so. I have had one or two 'encounters' but (perhaps due to me being over 6 foot with a P.O.W. buzzcut) nobody's ever got out their car. I'd still rather that than go unseen, or under someone's wheels.
The van driver would have been thinking that they were being smart asses about their rights and thought they were taking the piss a bit considering the location/build up of traffic.
To be honest, if he calmed down just a tad i reckon he would admit to feeling a bit worried for the cyclists. I dont think he was raging,he just wanted to give them his take on it all. He obviously saw them as being inconsiderate. I do too,to an extent. Kind of like driving down the motorway in the right hand lane,bang on the speed limit with the idea of "well im going the speed limit and im gradually passing the car to my left thats still 300 yards ahead of me but its definitely going slower than me so ill stay in this lane because im in the right"
Arse-in around with being in the right doesnt always add up to be a good or safe way to be.
It reminds me of the group of around a dozen roadies cycling over the Kessock bridge in the left lane when it was still busy after the morning rush hour. In their rights but.. ffs.. are they trying to get fitter to live a longer healthier life or are they quite content at the thought of being killed instantly? Some folk would be better off drinking every night with a couple of brisk walks over the weekend. Probably live longer.
graham - far too close to the kerb - I would be riding at least on the L of slow on that road.
and the "side road" mention, i take to mean to avoid cars trying to fly past you and cut you up on left turns, not riding in the middle of a lane near a roundabout.
I take it to mean approaching any hazard where it is safer to take the primary and that is certainly what Cyclecraft / Bikability teaches.
graham - far too close to the kerb - I would be riding at least on the L of slow on that road.
Agreed TJ, but I'm guessing that is what some people consider to be "not in the gutter".
I'm in the nay camp, the main reason why people ride two abreast is to chat, not a safe thing to do in my book. And stay well away from white vans.
i'd ride on the O or maybe even the S, one can't be too careful, i mean look at the over hanging trees near the very deep gutter on the left. a squirrel could fall onto my unhelmeted self-riteous head and knock some sense into me. that would never do.
GrahamS - Memberand the "side road" mention, i take to mean to avoid cars trying to fly past you and cut you up on left turns, not riding in the middle of a lane near a roundabout.
I take it to mean approaching any hazard where it is safer to take the primary and that is certainly what Cyclecraft / Bikability teaches.
so the fact you can't actually see the roundabout you're talking about for the majority of the clip also confirms you're in the wrong, then. as it's quite obviously a "long, even stretch". 😕 😆
so flat boy - what road position would you take? look at the pic Graham posted above.
the pic Graham posted is following the angry swerve the van driver made.
he wouldn't have made the angry swerve, if [s]you[/s] those idiots had just ridden single file an arms length from the kerb.
This is not a particularly ideal road to cycle along. If they ride two abreast then they are seen as being stubborn cyclists and getting in people's way but if they ride single file, they either ride so close to the kerb that cars can squeeze past, or they ride a bit further out and people have to move into the outside lane anyway.
There's a road like this in Peterborough, here (hope this works:
and you get quite a lot of cyclists. What tends to happen is they either ride along at the very edge of the road & people squeeze past very close, or they ride a bit further out (but still by no means in the middle of the lane) and car drivers have to go round them. Problem is, there will invariably be cars in the outside lane, which then winds the overtaker up, as they have to wait to pull out.
I wouldn't like to cycle along the road in that video, but if I did I'd probably be positioned far enough out that people had to go around me, rather than squeeze past.
I would ride just to the left of the S on a cycle. Motorbike would mostly be in the middle depending on whats up ahead/crests of hills etc. I can see some of the dangers riding to the left but i just feel safer not having to worry about someone not looking ahead,tuning the radio,texting a friend.. and ploughing right into me (if i was bang on in the middle)
Maybe i am hoping for the best when i say that its more likely that someone texting might manage to dodge me a little easier at the last moment if i ride to the left of the S. :o/
Recently did a TCL/MBL course where we were asked/required to cycle on the road in a tight box formation, all 8 of us. This was pretty unsettling and whilst we all took the footprint of a car and forced "proper overtakes", the abuse and response this provoked was interesting. Riding in this "correct" manner seemed to provoke rather than help and it was pretty uncomfortable.
The logic is sound though, one overtake to pass a box of 8 people or diving in and out to get past a line of 8 over a greater distance....
Still not sure about it all though I have to say.
I think if you want to use the road you have an obligation to at least try and match traffic speed.
I'll pass that nugget on to the next tractor driver I see. Or hearse.
just bin the bike and front up!
You know, I wondered idly what I'd do in their situation. If some huge bloke tried to stop me, who's just jumped out of a van after seeing me on a nice shiny bike, there is [i]no way on god's green earth[/i] I'd have stopped to talk to him. No way.
left of the S - so right in the gutter then allowing you to be squeezed into the kerb as vehicles try to squeeze past you? Very dangerous riding position.