Riding two abreast - ok or not?

[toontra]

The OP was talking about pairs of cyclists, not groups, so let's deal with that rather than get involved in group etiquette.

Yesterday coming back from a big cycle event we were held up endlessly by queues of cars held up behind pairs of cyclists riding 2-abreast on very busy, but narrow, A roads.

On the event itself we were also held up several times by slower riders ahead going 2-abreast and causing a tailback of cars, which we couldn't safely overtake.

What the hell is wrong with singling out if you become aware that you are seriously holding up traffic? Not doing so is purely selfish IMO - nothing to do with safety or "legality" - these are smokescreens that the righteous arrogant cyclist hides behind.

 

[Greenbank]

What the hell is wrong with singling out if you become aware that you are seriously holding up traffic? Not doing so is purely selfish IMO - nothing to do with safety or "legality" - these are smokescreens that the righteous arrogant cyclist hides behind.

Exactly. Consider the uses of the word "should" in the HWC and how that doesn't translate to a specific law.

The HWC may say that you "should ride in single file on narrow or busy roads and when riding round bends"

It also tells car drivers that they "should give motorcyclists, cyclists and horse riders at least as much room as you would when overtaking a car".

If you want the latter, consider doing the former.

 

[yello]

What the hell is wrong with singling out if you become aware that you are seriously holding up traffic?

Nothing. Has someone here suggested otherwise? I think thou doth protest too much!

 

[marinyork]

Exactly. Consider the uses of the word "should" in the HWC and how that doesn't translate to a specific law.

The HWC may say that you "should ride in single file on narrow or busy roads and when riding round bends"

It also tells car drivers that they "should give motorcyclists, cyclists and horse riders at least as much room as you would when overtaking a car".

If you want the latter, consider doing the former.

It's also somewhat contradictory in that it later says DO NOT overtake on a bend when there is doubt, cyclist infront of you should be a classic example of that. So it's a bit contradictory for me telling a cyclist to get out of the way on a bend only for some muppet to ignore their part of the bargain and come streaming past on the bend. I suppose strictly speaking the don't overtake on a bend trumps the other two in importance anyway.

 

[Wigsie]

I suppose strictly speaking the don't overtake on a bend trumps the other two in importance anyway.

Now there is an idea..... highway code Top Trumps!

 

[J4CKO]

Have to say, done right its fine, done badly its irratating even for other cyclists, when driving my car and I come across a bunch two abreast I give them a while to sort themselves out and acknowledge that ther eis a faster vehicle behind them, a couple of minute elapses and my patience dissapears, especially if they are, like I saw a coupel of months back chatting, riding no handed whilst swigging from awater bottle oblivious to the massive queue that had built up, I continued to wait but the big off roader (who could see over the hedge) didnt and made a fairly bad overtake.

 

[marinyork]

I quite like that. You could have good and bad behaviour cards with various characteristics .

 

[Greenbank]

I suppose strictly speaking the don't overtake on a bend trumps the other two in importance anyway.

Indeed, I ride in order to maximise my safety, whilst trying to be as minimal an impact on other road users as possible.

Sometimes this means it's better for me to temporarily ride two-a-breast in order to prevent someone performing a dangerous overtake, but, most of the time the best place for a 1000kg+ lump of metal which can do a lot of damage is in front of me, not behind me with a driver getting increasingly irritated and frustrated. On narrow lanes I'll prefer to pull over into a passing place to allow any car behind me to overtake rather than assert "my right" to cycle along holding them up.

I dislike group riding because of the points raised above. On busy-ish roads in order to satisfy my safety/impact ethos it is often easiest for me to drop off out the back and hang behind the bunch by a reasonable distance. If the roads are quiet then the impact aspect is minimised and I can try and cling on to the bunch for as long as my legs/lungs can handle it.

 

[marinyork]

True. I don't think you can win though. I've been on slower group rides with 10-15 people and been shouted at in all variants for being strung out and for being in pairs and being bunched up. People just don't want you there regardless and will shout at you even if you're doing the optimal thing for traffic behind you to pass.

The only time I cycle in pairs side by side is on two or three-lane dual carriageways. People usually get very angry about this which I can never understand as they have at least a whole extra lane to overtake in safely. Where they don't have an extra lane and traffic is standing they also get annoyed as usually they want to use the free lane and cut in later. It's not my fault they're in the wrong lane .

 

[purplepolly]

I've never ridden in a group, but speaking as a motorist it's often easier to overtake cyclists riding two abreast than in single file.

If the road is narrow so that I would have to pull out into a gap in the opposite lane, then I need more of a gap to overtake 2 cyclists in single file as it takes longer to overtake them. In this case it's more appropriate for the cyclists to be two abreast so that motorists can overtake more quickly.

As for two abreast on a sharp bend - it does have the advantage of being seen sooner by cars behind giving them more time to react. Riding in single file on would be like walking on the inside of a bend where's there's no pavement - rule two of the highway code recommends that pedestrians cross over to the outside so that they can be seen better.

 

[Arch]

You do see 2 abreast riding on main roads (race club chain gangs for instance) and there seems to be no problem with it. There might be no difference in law but there's a huge difference in attitude!

My experience in France has been that, shock horror, cars actually overtake you as if you are a car - they go over to the other side of the road, like they really should do here. If you are overtaking properly, rather than trying to stay on the same side of the white line as the person you are overtaking, which is what many British drivers seem to do, then 2 abreast shouldn't make any difference. Two cyclists abreast still take up less than one lane on the average road.

 

[Greenbank]

I actually don't know! I'll ask my club mates tomorrow.

In practice, as a group we frequently take up the entire road (!) on local roads and file out to 1 or 2 abreast (depending on road width) to allow traffic past. But then we don't face anything like the aggression or impatience that you do in the UK. Oncoming vehicles will sometimes slow, pull over and stop to allow us to pass!

You do see 2 abreast riding on main roads (race club chain gangs for instance) and there seems to be no problem with it. There might be no difference in law but there's a huge difference in attitude!

Isn't it French law that you must give cycles at least 1m of space in an urban area, and at least 1.5m outside urban areas?

I've certainly seen signs to that effect when in a car on a climb up to various ski resorts.

I certainly remember being given plenty of room whenever I've cycled in France although the majority of my riding was out of cities and usually going up something big and steep.

 

[yello]

Yello - what's the position in France?

Update on this. I asked on the club ride and the answer is (or I was told), 2 abreast is fine 3 isn't. Same as UK then.

When I asked about the 'in practice' situation of 2+ abreast I was treated to the infamous gallic shrug and a "boff"! That can mean many things but, in this context, I take it to mean don't do it!