road cycling

[Jacob]

...... Clubs out for a ride are OK providing they recognise motorists need to pass - 40 bikes in a two abreast stream is not good behaviour.
.......

The point of my post was to pass on the advice that cycling in a bunch is actually better for cyclists and for vehicles too -it makes overtaking easier, even if that is counter intuitive!
I doubt you'd ever see 40 @ 2 abreast* but even if you did this could be easier to overtake than 40 stretched out down the road in a single line.
Here it is again, click on the graphic:


* I guess you might see 40 together when a big group is just setting off but they tend to separate quite soon into smaller groups

 

[deema]

I believe riding in a bunch of more than two riders is actually illegal. With the new law coming into effect where we need to leave 1.5m when travelling at under 30 miles an hour and 2m above 30 miles an hour it will make it impossible to pass on most country roads. I for one will be calling the police to report riding without due care and attention to other road users when they are causing a traffic snarl up, when they don’t pull over and stop to allow traffic to pass (like any other road user is required to do such as tractors) I’m going to be interested in how quickly if at all the police respond. They do seem to be totally tolerant of bikes illegally riding on pavements, going through red lights, grabbing hold of moving vehicles for a tow, weaving through traffic, not signalling, riding without lights at night, going around roundabouts the wrong way, riding on the wrong side of the road to mention but a few of the now common habits of cyclists particularly in towns and cities. However, we must not say anything to that might upset the very fragile egos the cyclists seem to have, so I apologise whole heartedly to all I have offended by asking them to abide by the same set of rules every other road user is expected to abide by.

 

[paulrbarnard]

After 40 years off a bike I had cause to buy one (step through, electric). Spent 5 weeks in a coma (fine now) and banned from driving for at least 6 months.

That sounds pretty terrible but why on earth did you get a ban?

 

[paulrbarnard]

I believe riding in a bunch of more than two riders is actually illegal. With the new law coming into effect where we need to leave 1.5m when travelling at under 30 miles an hour and 2m above 30 miles an hour it will make it impossible to pass on most country roads. I for one will be calling the police to report riding without due care and attention to other road users when they are causing a traffic snarl up, when they don’t pull over and stop to allow traffic to pass (like any other road user is required to do such as tractors) I’m going to be interested in how quickly if at all the police respond. They do seem to be totally tolerant of bikes illegally riding on pavements, going through red lights, grabbing hold of moving vehicles for a tow, weaving through traffic, not signalling, riding without lights at night, going around roundabouts the wrong way, riding on the wrong side of the road to mention but a few of the now common habits of cyclists particularly in towns and cities. However, we must not say anything to that might upset the very fragile egos the cyclists seem to have, so I apologise whole heartedly to all I have offended by asking them to abide by the same set of rules every other road user is expected to abide by.

It is illegal to ride more than 2 abreast. It is perfectly legal to ride with more than two in a group.
Also the highway code indicates that riders SHOULD ride in single file on busy or narrow roads or when going around corners. The SHOULD does not make it illegal to those things.

 

[D_W]

in the city here, riders generally don't follow traffic laws that well, and at the same time, other drivers aren't very considerate to them (as in, unsafe - opening doors, pinching riders, honking horns).

The city in turn made bike lanes on several of the roads that are both off limits to drivers and (in some cases) physically separated by things that you can run over (like permanent vertical road cones) and probably have to pay to replace.

When I moved here, I learned of the bike messengers:
* single speed fixies or with regular hubs (but no multi-gear cassettes)
* rail thin folks, ride in traffic without regard for themselves at all (you eventually learn to drive and ignore them - they are pros and already know what dumb or smart things you could do , you won't hit them, they're a step ahead of you mentally)
* averse to taking showers - which you find out when you have to sign for a package

Total subculture, I thought it was interesting (poor pay), though.

They seem to have disappeared thanks to digital transmission of documents and the elimination of physical wet signature requirements on a lot of regulatory compliance stuff.

When I was riding recreationally, I lived near several loops that were heavy bike and run traffic and little in terms of cars. It was a real luxury (large loop was 5 miles with designated bike and pedestrian space - never endangered by cars, but sometimes issues with peds feeling special and walking opposite side of the road with headphones on and in the bike lanes "ON YOUR LEFT" often heard only when close enough to yell over what they were listening to, and not a non-zero chance that they would jump to the left when they finally heard you). Biking stopped when I didn't live close enough to the loop to ride on it.

A couple of rides outside of designated bike areas (including rural, in one case getting brushed by a passing car mirror) and the death of a coworker's relative and another acquaintance - one due to a drunk driver mid-day, and the other an elderly driver - cured me of the idea of just riding anywhere.

 

[Terry - Somerset]

That sounds pretty terrible but why on earth did you get a ban?

Adrenal failure and collapse for which I now take daily meds. As it caused a neurological malfunction the docs said no driving in case of a repeat - not dissimilar to their "advice" for stroke, epilepsy etc.

I take the meds and no problems for 3 years - in fact feel better than the last two decades!

 

[paulrbarnard]

Adrenal failure and collapse for which I now take daily meds. As it caused a neurological malfunction the docs said no driving in case of a repeat - not dissimilar to their "advice" for stroke, epilepsy etc.

I take the meds and no problems for 3 years - in fact feel better than the last two decades!

Wow that sucks. Great that you are better than ever. That's a good side effect tio get from medication.

In a similar fashion I got back in to cycling in my late 30's after fainting in the bath. I got a medical driving ban which left me cycling to work (40 mile round trip) for over a year. I had never fainted before or since.

 

[Droogs]

Tolerance is in short supply.

I have no real interest in fast road cycling (lycra, head down), some cyclists seem arrogant in a self righteous belief they should have priority. Some don't recognise that when car meets flesh, car normally wins.

As does the Highway code with you must give priority to cyclists and pedestrians with the changes introduced on Monday. Im in the middle of studying for my class1 theory and was just given revised precis for the test

 

[Jacob]

I believe riding in a bunch of more than two riders is actually illegal. ......

No it isn't.
You should not ride more than 2 abreast but this is not you must not. It's advisory.
There are occasions when it could be OK, wide empty roads etc, but by and large nobody does it anyway.

Why the Highway Code should protect riding two abreast | Cycling UK

Over the past few months, we’ve been exploring many of the new proposals for a revised Highway Code which, if adopted, could help make cycling safer and – just as importantly – make cycling feel safer. We’ve highlighted why a ‘hierarchy of responsibility’ would help put the greatest...

www.cyclinguk.org

.

 

[thetyreman]

No it isn't.

+1 it isn't

 

[Ozi]

As both a cyclist and a motorist I have noticed that which ever form of transport I am using those using the other immediately turn into a complete set of bottom openings. Here's hoping but without much optimism my fellow cyclists remember that with increased writes come increased responsibilitys

 

[paulrbarnard]

No it isn't.
You should not ride more than 2 abreast but this is not you must not. It's advisory.
There are occasions when it could be OK, wide empty roads etc, but by and large nobody does it anyway.

Why the Highway Code should protect riding two abreast | Cycling UK

Over the past few months, we’ve been exploring many of the new proposals for a revised Highway Code which, if adopted, could help make cycling safer and – just as importantly – make cycling feel safer. We’ve highlighted why a ‘hierarchy of responsibility’ would help put the greatest...

www.cyclinguk.org

.

The wording has changed. I believe it now says “cyclist can ride two abreast.” That might supersede the previous wording and disallow riding three of more abreast.

 

[deema]

The new laws in the UK are I fear a complete opportunity for yet more insurance scams. It’s well know for cars to pull in front of other vehicles and stop suddenly, or similar moves at roundabouts causing rear end shunt claims with the inevitable whip lash. With the new laws, I am certain we are going to see a rise of idiots jumping onto cars as they turn into roads, or other such stupidity claiming they were run ove and that the vehicle didn’t give way. I only hope that sense prevails and we get a revision in the wording. A dash and rear cam is now I believe an absolute necessity for any motorised vehicle.

 

[deema]

No it isn't.
You should not ride more than 2 abreast but this is not you must not. It's advisory.
There are occasions when it could be OK, wide empty roads etc, but by and large nobody does it anyway.

Why the Highway Code should protect riding two abreast | Cycling UK

Over the past few months, we’ve been exploring many of the new proposals for a revised Highway Code which, if adopted, could help make cycling safer and – just as importantly – make cycling feel safer. We’ve highlighted why a ‘hierarchy of responsibility’ would help put the greatest...

www.cyclinguk.org

.

I believe the Highway Code allows and in fact promoted two abreast cycling as it (used to) cause less disruption for cars getting past / makes cyclists more obvious to road users. A very practical alteration that was made some time ago. However, all road users are required to use the roads with due regard to other road users, and as a consequence, riding two or more abreast, or a number of cyclists bunched together on narrow roads is both a must not, and also falls, as I understand it, into the category of failure to take due care and attention.

The new rules, mean that on most minor Country roads, passing a single cyclist positioned correctly near the inside (where they must move to when approached by a fast moving vehicle, otherwise a cyclist should cycle in the middle of the carriageway); allowing 1.5m will be impossible. As a consequnce, cyclists must pull in / stop allowing faster moving traffic to pass and avoiding undue delays on the highway.

 

[paulrbarnard]

The new rules, mean that on most minor Country roads, passing a single cyclist positioned correctly near the inside (where they must move to when approached by a fast moving vehicle, otherwise a cyclist should cycle in the middle of the carriageway); allowing 1.5m will be impossible. As a consequnce, cyclists must pull in / stop allowing faster moving traffic to pass and avoiding undue delays on the highway.

I don’t agree with that interpretation. There is no requirement for anyone to pull in to let a faster moving vehicle pass. Speed limits are limits not targets so you have no right to expect to travel at a specific minimum speed. A vehicle travelling at 10mph has every right to do so. There is no specific guidance that slow moving vehicles must pull in to let other vehicles pass. Check 169 which is the closest that suggests slow moving vehicles can pull in if they are causing long tail backs, but no requirement to do so.

 

[deema]

Thanks Paul, I believe it says, if I’ve copied and pasted it correctly.
Rule 169 of the Highway Code states that motorists should not hold up a long queue of traffic, especially if they are driving a large or slow-moving vehicle. It informs drivers to frequently check their mirrors, and if necessary, pull in where it is safe and let traffic pass.

This applies to cyclists and any other user of the highway. It’s a should not.

 

[deema]

Careless driving / driving without due care and attention includes, I’ve highlighted the ones that may be applied to cyclists I believe, the list isn’t exhaustive.

In essence, any driving that demonstrates lack of alertness to the dangers of the road, or a disregard for other road users (whether deliberate or not), could fall under this category.

Examples of not paying attention while driving may include:

• Fiddling with the radio or infotainment
• Setting the sat nav
• Reading a map (or anything else)
• Eating or drinking at the wheel
• Adjusting your seating position
• Allowing yourself to be distracted by passengers in the car
• Examples of disregard for other road users may include:
• Driving aggressively
• Tailgating
• Overtaking on the left-hand side
• Lane-hogging
• Not giving way where appropriate
• Swerving across lanes
• Using the wrong lane at a roundabout

I’m all for cycling, good exercise, environmentally friendly, what I find difficult to accept is any road user behaving appallingly and disregarding the rules because they feel they don’t like them, or aren't aware of them. That for me applies to things people do in what they consider to be their best interests to keep themselves safe. The rules apply to all, and if they arnt correct need to be changed through the proper channels, not by arbitrary applying just those they agree with.
The roads are extremely busy and as a consequence dangerous. I can’t understand the resistance to both mandatory testing of all road users and also for everyone to carry insurance and some form of ID on any type of vehicle using the road. For some reason, there is a huge resistance to bringing this in for cyclists or anything I think that is deemed to travel at under 20 miles an hour.

 

[Jacob]

.......
The roads are extremely busy and as a consequence dangerous. I can’t understand the resistance to both mandatory testing of all road users and also for everyone to carry insurance and some form of ID on any type of vehicle using the road. For some reason, there is a huge resistance to bringing this in for cyclists or anything I think that is deemed to travel at under 20 miles an hour.

Because they do very little damage to anybody or anything, much like pedestrians. Also require very little in the way of infrastructure and maintenance thereof.
The problem is with motor vehicles which now dominates our streets roads and lanes which were never designed for motors and are often inadequate.

 

[deema]

Because they do very little damage to anybody or anything, much like pedestrians. Also require very little in the way of infrastructure and maintenance thereof.
The problem is with motor vehicles which now dominates our streets roads and lanes which were never designed for motors and are often inadequate.

That’s an interesting perspective Jacob, but one I don’t feel is supported by the data. The link is to the latest Government statistics

Reported road casualties Great Britain: road user risk, 2020 data

www.gov.uk

The first graph shows that cyclist do indeed cause fatalities, in 2020, a total of 5.

Now some might say that’s not many, or small compared to other road users. Firstly any death is a huge tragedy, but at least with motorised road users they are (or should be) insured to compensate those they harm.
Looking at a more sight full statistic the fatalities per miles of travel.

What we see is that cyclists are almost as dangerous as cars and LGVs. If we use the argument that cyclist cause less harm, it’s close to where we should also say that cars and LGV don’t need number plates and insurance for the same reason cyclists don’t. The trend for cyclist causing deaths is one thats increasing.

 

[deema]

I think it’s also interesting to see from the same report who is getting killed / seriously injured (KSI) on cycles.
Basically the most effective way of reducing cycling accidents (a massive 46% of all deaths) would be to stop men aged between 30 and 60 from cycling! It’s probably not surprising men have a higher rate of accidents due to their trait of being higher risk takers, but the age profile is what surprised me the most.

The data suggests that assuming the risk posed by traffic is the same for cyclists is the same, that it is the behaviour of men aged between 30 and 60 that accounts for the most fatalities. This won’t I don’t believe be addressed by changing the rules of the road, it’s something about the attitude / behaviour of men when cycling that’s the problem. This is what needs addressing.