Extraordinarily entrenched views here. I think it's too late for any realistic prospect that anyone is going to be hauled out of their own trench to a different place, but I like a challenge. And I know I'm treading in some well-worn footsteps here.
This one line should be sufficient for anyone with any sense to draw all the necessary and relevant conclusions about the appropriate behaviour of the cyclists and driver concerned.
There's not enough room for a car to overtake one bike if there's a car coming the other way.
Therefore any car behind a single bike should wait until there are no vehicles coming the other way.
There's enough room for cars to pass each other in opposite directions, and two bikes abreast are generally less wide than a car.
Therefore, there's enough room for a car to overtake two bikes abreast, presuming there's no vehicle coming the other way.
Given that a car coming the other way means it would be impossible to overtake one bike safely, the existence of a second bike (abreast of the first) doesn't alter the level of impossibility.
Net result, whether the bikes were singled out or two abreast makes not one jot of difference to how or when a following driver should overtake them.
It sounds like the cyclists did EXACTLY the right thing, and stayed two abreast, otherwise they might have invited an unsafe pass from an impatient, inconsiderate motorist. I detect no 'attitude' here, other than a desire to stay safe, with, just possibly, a little thought to the prevention of a motorist making an utter tit of himself. Thankfully their tactics appear to have been completely successful, on both counts.
I'm struggling to see how anything these two did could in any way be interpreted as 'dangerous'. Quite the opposite.
This isn't rocket engineering, the principles really are quite straightforward.
I defy anyone to out-logic this argument.