2 Abreast cycling is simply not safe.

[Roxy641]

I'm sure many drivers ment to toot a "friendly toot" on their horn, but a second too long and it turns into: "I'm gonna overtake you and I don't care if you are aware of me or not". Also, when I hear the sound of a horn behind me, I can never be sure if it's ment for me, or some other road user (not even necessary for a fellow cyclist).

Then, the other point I wanted to make (apologises if someone has already made it). On country lanes there isn't even room for a cyclist AND a car driver at the same time, or at least, not without the car driver slowing down so that she/he doesn't knock you off the bike.

 

[EnPassant]

Round here, some people hit the horn at blind bends but that assumes that the oncoming driver (if there is one) had heard the noise - if they can hear at all. Better, IMHO, to respect the road and the conditions.

Ahh, I've witnessed this here too (and elsewhere out in the sticks ), but there's the rub, because it's done blind you know they are doing it because sightlines preclude visual reference. Once you know you can be seen, the use of the horn becomes moot, sure it's supposed to mean one thing "I'm here in case you didn't notice me", but sadly it mostly doesn't.

ETA: Perhaps I lived too long in London

 

[T.M.H.N.E.T]

It's definitely not safe if you're with this chap


View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HkNK_VJPfBs

 

[Katherine]

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).

To overtake cyclists safely, move across into the other lane as soon as you can see ahead that the road is clear. However many cyclists there are is irrelevant. So, of course it is easier to overtake six cyclists riding two abreast than in single file.

If the road is narrow, the same applies but as you will have less room, so you will also slow down accordingly. The less room that you have, the slower that you will be able to go.

Do not think it is ok to squeeze through in the same lane as the cyclist whilst there is oncoming traffic, even if there is only one cyclist.

 

[shouldbeinbed]

I disagree completely. I bet you'll be able to find that somebody, somewhere, has done a few little trials and has discovered that the level of aggression is directly in proportion to the length of the blast. If motorists understood that cyclists are partially deafened by the wind noise in their ears, they might be more willing to pip their horns from a hundred yards back so as to give advance warning. Clearly this can only work on quiet rural roads and would fail in city traffic.

Would these be the same cyclists who claim headphones make no difference to their hearing of the world around them?

Also if you are partially deafened by the wind noise and you know it, why are you not compensating for that with extra visual checks.

Seems irresponsible cycling to blithely ride on knowingly unaware of your surroundings but hey, each to their own.

I'll continue riding responsibly for my own welfare.

 

[MontyVeda]

It's definitely not safe if you're with this chap


View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HkNK_VJPfBs

I suspect headphones. He appears to be completely oblivious to the fact that there's a car behind him, and not a single shoulder check.

 

[ianrauk]

I suspect headphones. He appears to be completely oblivious to the fact that there's a car behind him, and not a single shoulder check.

More like Strava checking.

 

[T.M.H.N.E.T]

I suspect headphones. He appears to be completely oblivious to the fact that there's a car behind him, and not a single shoulder check.

I couldn't see any signs of "tunes" but I'm 80% sure I saw a cam on his helmet. Would be delicious irony

 

[Deleted member 35268]

If cycling two abreast is not an issue, why did the cyclists I was behind for over a mile riding two abreast bother to thin out to single file to let me past. I was quite happy going at 18 mph behind them. They weren't bothering me but I was bothering them. Weird.

 

[GrumpyGregry]

If cycling two abreast is not an issue, why did the cyclists I was behind for over a mile riding two abreast bother to thin out to single file to let me past. I was quite happy going at 18 mph behind them. They weren't bothering me but I was bothering them. Weird.

They didn't know it was you and thought it was a run-of-the-mill driver with very little patience?

 

[GrumpyGregry]

TL;DR but

The statement "2 Abreast cycling is simply not safe"

is

a) really poor English
b) cobblers
c) an example of the sort of unconscious motor-centric thinking from drivers who are cyclists, which I fear we must blame on the lead they used to put in petrol.

 

[400bhp]

Do you stop and pull over when you see two riders abreast coming from the opposite direction?

I skipped all other posts as I found THE ANSWER

 

[Ajax Bay]

If cycling two abreast is not an issue, why did the cyclists I was behind for over a mile riding two abreast bother to thin out to single file to let me past. I was quite happy going at 18 mph behind them. They weren't bothering me but I was bothering them. Weird.

Not remotely 'weird'. They could not know you were in no hurry and possessed the patience of Job. They recognised that you would want to get past, identified a stretch of road where it would be safe, and singled out to make it nice and easy to pass very safely, demonstrating 'live and let live' politeness and consideration for other road users. Riding along with a car close behind doesn't make for a relaxing ride (and @GrumpyGregry has said why). The cyclists demonstrated good practice, maybe even best practice. When judging this 'weird', where's your empathy?

 

[GrumpyGregry]

Not remotely 'weird'. They could not know you were in no hurry and possessed the patience of Job. They recognised that you would want to get past, identified a stretch of road where it would be safe, and singled out to make it nice and easy to pass very safely, demonstrating 'live and let live' politeness and consideration for other road users. Riding along with a car close behind doesn't make for a relaxing ride (and @GrumpyGregry has said why). The cyclists demonstrated good practice, maybe even best practice. When judging this 'weird, where's your empathy?

I am with you. Clearly the cyclists were bothered, for whatever reason, by the car tailing them at 18mph for a mile, else they wouldn't have singled out, surely?

 

[Spinney]

I am with you. Clearly the cyclists were bothered, for whatever reason, by the car tailing them at 18mph for a mile, else they wouldn't have singled out, surely?

They needn't have been bothered. They may have just thought that the car behind them had been very patient and it was no bother to them to single out at a safe place!
Love 'n' happiness all round!