Cyclists! Why do they ride in the middle of the road? (motoring.co.uk)

*reads article*

Hang on a minute, that all seems remarkably sensible. Is this definitely a motoring website? Where’s the Clarkson angle?

Pretty decent article by Carlton Reid (if possibly just a little condescending). I hope many drivers read it!

Been doing the rounds on the FarceBook this morning too, altogether quite reasonable as you say!

Nice breath of fresh air, that

Does indeed read very well, think I’ll share this around the various social media platforms and see if I can find any cycle haters.

I like the article, but don’t read the comments underneath 🙄

don’t read the comments underneath

Happily most of the usual Hateful Babbling has been modded away.
There is only really Confused Whining and What-Aboutism left.

Also shared, seems like a very informative non-biased article

Good article, deserves a wider audience.

Oh, I wish that article was part of the driving test.

Yeah someone in the comments did make the point that at no point during his driving lessons or driving test did anyone mention the Primary Position or explain why cyclists (and motorcyclists) might use it.

If we don’t teach motorists about it then how can we expect them to understand?

Plenty in the highway code about how to drive around vulnerable road users.

But it would be good to get some more road awareness and social (driving) skills into the test. Should probably just put in personallity profiling to weed out those with anger management issues.

Even amongst cyclists you see it though. Just read the motorbiking thread or any other about speeding where people assume the laws don’t apply to them and are unable to comprehend the danger their actions pose to others.

I see Evans and CTC have picked it up on FaceBook

Sadly some of the comments on there are worse than the ones on the article. 😯

Weird – I sort of expected that someone who had Liked one of those organisations might have some sympathy with the cyclists…

I see Evans and CTC have picked it up on FaceBook

Sadly some of the comments on there are worse than the ones on the article.

Weird – I sort of expected that someone who had Liked one of those organisations might have some sympathy with the cyclists…

Its very likely that the people who like the page are cyclists and when they comment/like a post its shared with their friends who may not be so sympathetic.

Was just about to post this in the chat forum with the tagline “prepare (not) to be outraged” 😀 and thought maybe I’d check the other forum first.

Nice article, but as ever, the comments (especially on Facebook) are disappointing. Somehow, the message has to get through sometime you’d think, wouldn’t you?

I did point out to Carlton on twitter that there is a mistake in the article.

You can ride more than two abreast.

Highway code rule 66.

Possibly Singlespeed_Shep, though some identify themselves as “cyclists”:

As a cyclist i don’t think we should be riding on the road, but use cycle paths / towpaths where possible. Because i have been involved in many accidents over the years.
…
Why do some cyclists ride side by side? They know it just pisses off the cars behind, even when there is a long line of cars behind? BTW I am car driver and cyclist.
…
“Side by side.” Unless there is a really good excuse are bad cyclists. I think just like red light “jumpers” do other cyclists a disservice. “Packs” I’ve seen rarely but even as a cyclist I find them quite alarming.

😯

Carlton Reid needs to use his internet brand like this more often.
Great article.

Pretty decent article by Carlton Reid (if possibly just a little condescending).

a little bit, but not as much as he can be… but that’s what makes him heard.

EDIT: and as someone who has driven a car and a bicycle (and a horse once) I feel I’m overly qualified to comment.

You can ride more than two abreast.
Highway code rule 66.

Eh?

Rule 66: You should never ride more than two abreast, and ride in single file on narrow or busy roads and when riding round bends.

I sort of expected that someone who had Liked one of those organisations might have some sympathy with the cyclists..

You were surprised that aggressive confrontational trolly types like sites that enable them to argue with folk with opposing views…your new here right?
Saying they are a cyclists is Largely a ruse IMHO though, again as this place shows, some cyclists really are idiots [ you can make your own list]

Oh dear the worst comment i’ve read so far, deluded much?

“16/04/2014 12:57:51
Paul Stevens Commented:
Cyclists do not pay road tax nor do the vast majority have any form of 3rd party insurance, nor any form of proper riding qualification (yet can ride at over 40mph!), thus they have no rights on the public road. I get so annoyed by the cyclist self opinionated view that they are always in the right and all other road users are wrong. Now lorry designs are having to be changed because idiot cyclists who think they can ignore red lights, use pavements, ignore the rules of the road and put themselves in the wrong places through ignorance are getting injured. You don’t pay tax, you don’t have insurance, you don’t have a riding licence, you don’t have any rights on the road. Get out of the way!”

Sad thing is, even if you pointed out every single glaringly obvious flaw in his rant to him, he would still think like that.

And he’s allowed to pilot heavy, hard, machinery at speed around squishy people.

I think people make those comments to get a rise out of people, no-one’s that stupid.

Possibly Singlespeed_Shep, though some identify themselves as “cyclists”:

I suppose like the guy who made the “York Cyclists” video.

no-one’s that stupid.

never underestimate the stupidity of others

BTW I am car driver and cyclist.

This is sort of the motorist equivalent of “some of my best friends are black” isn’t it? *

What they actually mean is “I rode a hire bike on a disused railway-line eight years ago, it was quite good fun but I’m too lazy and too chicken to cycle on the roads, and I therefore don’t see why anyone else should be allowed to because it might cause me to have to use my **** brain occasionally.”

(Edit: * not suggesting that cyclists suffer anywhere near as much as the victims of racial abuse, I hasten to add! Just observing a similarity between treatment of out-groups, that’s all.)

Oh dear the worst comment i’ve read so far, deluded much?

Missed that one – I think it has been modded already.

I find it weird that some folk seem to think that our rights and legal protections should be based on how much tax we pay.

Should we all be forced to drive/cycle round with our latest payslip on display?

I can’t imagine that these same people would be happy to be run off the road by investment bankers and CEOs shouting “I pay more tax than you, get out of the way!”

Despite the warning, I scrolled down to the comments wondering when the first road tax comment would be made…the first one

depressing isn’t it that you can predict what falsehoods are going to get thrown out there before you even read them

I’m all in favour of taxation based rights on the road.

everyone on benefits and all those lorries hauling stuff for amazon and every other company based overseas and not declaring a profit in the UK will have to get out of the way and let me past on my old fashiond 26er. As will Clarkson and all the other media luvvies that set up companies and get monies paid to them via bloody offshore trusts.

It feels like I’m the only bugger paying anything…so I go first.

erm…that’s right isn’t it?

Wonder if Clarkson would like to write a piece in Singletrack.

Doubt Chips could afford him, but it might be interesting.

Just take a few of his previous articles, maybe bits of his books, chop them up and paste them together.

I’m pretty sure that’s what he does. (and fair play to him)

@GrahamS, you need to understand the Highway code, which I am sure you do, it says should not ride more than two abreast, as I put it to Carlton, His article says two abreast is ok but no more, the law says you should try and avoid riding more than two abreast.

I know it is playing with words, but in Highway Code speak if it doesn’t say MUST then it is legal, it might advise you should try and avoid but it doesn’t say you can’t. Part of the reason behind the cyclepath and hi-viz comments and the lobbying to get them removed, not illegal but only going to cause problems by there existence.

Classic example I can think of from personal experience, during the winter when I went out with the roadies, you ride two abreast as a general rule, but if you come up on other cyclists, you move out as a pair and overtake, this is fine. If riding more than two abreast was illegal, ie you must not, you would have to single out and overtake.

in Highway Code speak if it doesn’t say MUST then it is legal, it might advise you should try and avoid but it doesn’t say you can’t.

I see your point mrmo, but to be fair to Carlton he didn’t say that riding more than two abreast was illegal either, just that “The Highway Code states that cyclists should not ride more than two abreast” which it does.

Knowing his work I’m sure he’s aware of the subtleties in the “should” vs “must” wording but that’s probably too fine a point for such an article.

Besides picking part the legalities versus advice in the Highway Code undermines other points: e.g. most of the Highway Code rules about giving space to other road users, overtaking cyclists etc are “should” not “MUST” rules.

Do we really want to highlight that this is optional?

GrahamS, only reason I mentioned it was because the difference is misunderstood so often.

If you write should not, I think most assume legally you must not, which is not what it says. If it says you should use the cycle path, it is taken as you must use the cyclepath and you have no right to use the road.

I do find the whole word game slightly depressing TBH.

Would rather he worded it to the effect that riding two abreast is acceptable and not bothered referencing more than two abreast.

I do find the whole word game slightly depressing TBH.

Me too.

The Highway Code somehow manages the neat trick of being misleading, obtuse, vague and wooly-worded whilst remaining the authoritative source. 😕

Plenty of motorists warble on that cyclists should “go read the Highway Code” whilst they willfully ignore huge swathes of it on a daily basis.

I think a bit more clarity (and enforcement) would be a good thing!

More entertainingly deluded comments from various sources:

All totally valid, but no mention of the fact that a blue sign is a ‘must’ sign, where there is a cycle lane, you ‘must’ use it. Though this does not seem to apply as the proportion of lycra in a cyclists pants increases.

😯

As a fellow cyclist I realise how many drivers do not see cyclists …scary!!! And I don’t ride in middle of road, as I know traffic rules, sadly, many don’t x
I often have to get off and walk it on path, as I feel motorists are ramming me off the road !!!

😯

Incidentally I spoke to Carlton yesterday on FB and he said this was the first of a series of articles he is doing for motoring.co.uk

I believe the next one is about space4cycling so expect exactly the same comments about “road tax” etc to be rolled out again.