2 Abreast cycling is simply not safe.

[beany_bot]

I've been dragged into yet ANOTHER argument about this and have just had enough.
So I made an illustration to explain my point.

As a cyclist and a motorist I hate riders riding two abreast, and further hate it when we claim "its better for motorists because they don't have as far to overtake". It is very damaging for us cyclists and I will explain why.

We constantly (and rightly) demand that cars pass us at a safe distance. Quite right.
Yet by riding 2 abreast we suddenly say that this is no longer important.

I have illustrated below what I mean.
When I am driving a car behind 2 abreast cyclists I simply will not pass them. Ever. For the reasons in the graphic below.

I don't understand how so many people claim "cars should give me 5/6 feet" etc and then also claim they should be able to ride 2 abreast and cars will be able to get past.

Illustration.

And this image from the highway code itself, How could this be possible is riding 2 abreast?

I know the haters will comes, and I will be attacked. but I am sick of the hypocrisy with us cyclists over this issue.
By telling cars it's OK to overtake 2 abreast. You just tell them that it's ok to give the same distance to ALL riders. (which would be a squeeze past when riders are in primary).

 

[glasgowcyclist]

Your illustrations are visible (for me at least) so I don't know what you're describing.
Even so, I'm betting you're mistaken about it!

GC

 

[beany_bot]

Your illustrations are visible (for me at least) so I don't know what you're describing.
Even so, I'm betting you're mistaken about it!

GC

https://postimg.org/image/4bxu4rygr/

 

[glasgowcyclist]

https://postimg.org/image/4bxu4rygr/

Sorry, all I get is "This page can’t be displayed"

GC

 

[Mugshot]

The position for the outside rider when riding two abreast will likely be around primary, so not startlingly different to a solo rider taking the lane and getting overtaken.

The vehicle driver should be passing with as much space left as possible, if the outside rider is not comfortable with that they can single out, but in reality it makes little to no difference to overtaking vehicles.

 

[beany_bot]

 

[nickyboy]

We've been over this a zillion times. When it's just two cyclists (ie not a group) it always boils down to one thing; if you think a car driver should have to pass a solo cyclist in the manner of the photo, two abreast is fine. If you think a car driver can pass a bit closer than that then it's not fine

For me, I've no problem with a car passing closer than in that photo, straddling the white line in effect

 

[Markymark]

Simple. Image 3 is not ideal but it's an awful lot better than a driver squeezing through when there's oncoming traffic.

Therefor if it stops that, and I do that by either holding primary or riding alongside, on areas of road where passing is dangerous then I do so.

Two abreast or primary forces the driver to only overtake when oncoming traffic is clear.

I too am a driver. I aslo know what it's like for a car to squeeze through with oncoming traffic. There's a Sky bus video doing the rounds here and on news sites - have a look. Then think what the coach would have done if the riders were two abreast.

 

[glasgowcyclist]

View attachment 143289

Is the car being hemmed in by a guardrail or something? What's stopping the driver moving to his right?

GC

 

[beany_bot]

The position for the outside rider when riding two abreast will likely be around primary,

I have NEVER experienced that. The outside rider is always right of the centre line. Making a safe pass....impossible.

This is much more realistic.

 

[beany_bot]

Is the car being hemmed in by a guardrail or something? What's stopping the driver moving to his right?

GC

emm, a kerb? a hedge? a farmers field? a house?

 

[MontyVeda]

since i don't have any friends, i never have the luxury of cycling two-abreast... so I'm with the OP.

 

[beany_bot]

Simple. Image 3 is not ideal but it's an awful lot better than a driver squeezing through when there's oncoming traffic.

Therefor if it stops that, and I do that by either holding primary or riding alongside, on areas of road where passing is dangerous then I do so.

Two abreast or primary forces the driver to only overtake when oncoming traffic is clear.

I too am a driver. I aslo know what it's like for a car to squeeze through with oncoming traffic. There's a Sky bus video doing the rounds here and on news sites - have a look. Then think what the coach would have done if the riders were two abreast.

By all means use 2 abreast as a means of stopping a pass. That I completely agree with and support.
It's those who say it i safe to pass 2 abreast that irks me.

 

[Markymark]

I have NEVER experienced that. The outside rider is always right of the centre line. Making a safe pass....impossible.

This is much more realistic.

A car passing acrosd the lines is then perfectly so for all drivers. The only cyclist in danger is one where the car is straddling the line.

 

[Markymark]

By all means use 2 abreast as a means of stopping a pass. That I completely agree with and support.
It's those who say it i safe to pass 2 abreast that irks me.

It is safe. It forces the car to the oncoming lane. The alternative is dangerous.

Some drivers hate it because what they;re really saying is that they can;t push through with oncoming cars. They should go farkthemselves.