What is the Law (UK) when it comes to cycling in the road?

[Hawk]

I must remember to install an enormous neon sign on my back when cycling 2 abreast - "Take care, I am cycling 2 abreast with my considerably less experienced daughter, to protect her and build her confidence."

It sounds to me like you're making some pretty big assumptions?

What would you think of a tandem being walked up a hill? Guy who was on the back walking on the left of the bike, at least a foot from the road edge; guy who was on the front, walking on the right of the bike, in the traffic lane - at risk of his kidneys being taken out by car mirrors skimming by? Taking up at least 1.5 metres of the lane?

Guessing you'd think there's "no real reason" for such odd behaviour? Go on - have a go

Riding next to your inexperienced daughter is a decent reason. Two experienced roadies 2abreast with no good reason on some of the roads I've posted above, whilst being aware of traffic behind, is still inappropriate though.

 

[srw]

Have you considered that it might be specifically to stop drivers from overtaking?

Only if he's actually read the thread he's replying to...

 

[Feastie]

I must remember to install an enormous neon sign on my back when cycling 2 abreast - "Take care, I am cycling 2 abreast with my considerably less experienced daughter, to protect her and build her confidence."

It sounds to me like you're making some pretty big assumptions?

What would you think of a tandem being walked up a hill? Guy who was on the back walking on the left of the bike, at least a foot from the road edge; guy who was on the front, walking on the right of the bike, in the traffic lane - at risk of his kidneys being taken out by car mirrors skimming by? Taking up at least 1.5 metres of the lane?

Guessing you'd think there's "no real reason" for such odd behaviour? Go on - have a go

I was giving an example from my experience, in which there was no discernable reason. I didn't mean to imply that there's never ever a single reason in which people might cycle two abreast or be jutting out into the road (and sorry that I was not more clear, I didn't think to list exceptions). I only meant that the times I've seen it, a reason has not been evident! It wasn't meant to be an assumption about anything, just a little moan about what's happened to me in the past.

I've never been in a situation where somebody has been cycling that way with a child, but of course that would be perfectly fine. If somebody is protecting another vulnerable person I don't think you'd get many complaints from anybody. The 5 or 6 occasions this has happened to me, it's been lycra clad and helmeted adult men on road bikes with a lot of space to move and a straight, clear road with enough room for me to over take safely if they just went single file!

 

[Hawk]

Have you considered that it might be specifically to stop drivers from overtaking?

Yes. I am aware of primary position and its intentions; and I agree that two-abreast is effectively an extension of riding primary. As you later have a go at me over my reading of this thread, I do hope you looked at my three googlemap links to roads [you were quoted in said post after all] where this would not be the case and where riding two abreast would only impede traffic flow and at best would reduce cyclist safety. But you have yet to acknowledge a change of heart from "I find this situation extremely unlikely" or otherwise explain why you disagree with me?

And indeed, for large groups, two abreast halves the length of the group on the road and halves the time spent overtaking and thus the distance required to safely overtake.

Only if he's actually read the thread he's replying to...

Thanks........ I would hope that you had read my reply, where I linked a few roads near me where cycling two abreast constantly would only impede traffic flow, and would be able to ascertain that I was indeed aware of the content of the thread.

Have you thought of getting a single file width car?

Do you not think that's a bit of a snobby comment? The car has as much right to the road as we cyclists do. If a car UNNECESSARILY held you up, you would be unhappy, just as drivers are unhappy at being UNNECESSARILY held up. Sure, we don't always see eye to eye as to what is "necessary". Do you agree that cycling two abreast on at least one of the roads I have linked, whilst traffic sat behind you for miles on end, would be unhelpful?

 

[growingvegetables]

it's been lycra clad and helmeted adult men on road bikes with a lot of space to move and a straight, clear road with enough room for me to over take safely if they just went single file!

Hmmm - so your convenience (and assumptions!) take priority? Not being rude ... just asking.

But you ducked my question about the tandem walkers. So come on - the guy on the back has high viz and helmet, both are grown men (but no, neither do lycra).

What's your reading of the situation? "Two adult men with a tandem, with a lot of space to move, easy to walk single file, well into the grass verge, leaving a straight, clear road with enough room for me to over take safely if they just went single file!" - would that be fair?

 

[Hawk]

Hmmm - so your convenience (and assumptions!) take priority? Not being rude ... just asking.

My safety, your safety, your convenience, my convenience.

As a cyclist 2-abreast on such roads as I have linked....
Going single file would probably increase my safety, not affect your safety.
Single file would be extremely convenient for you, and it would not inconvenience me.

There is ABSOLUTELY no reason not to go single file.
If a car driver is going to close pass you, he'd have flown past you when you were doubled up without a safe distance.

Going single file at least GIVES A CHANCE for a safe overtake.

As for your tandem question, I don't know! I wouldn't expect cyclists to go on a grass verge though. Is one person either side of the tandem because it's necessary to balance it?

 

[Hawk]

Exactly, as much as in not a greater right. As for unnecessarily holding each other up, I find roads cluttered up with slow moving vehicles all the time. Without them I could get about the place quicker. The overwhelming majority of them have no one sitting in the left hand side of the car but there they are expecting all that width.

If they could easily reduce their car down to single file when they didn't need to carry passengers, I'm sure they would. Two cyclists two-abreast have exactly this capability.

I'm not looking at the big picture of "you hold up cars" "no cars hold me up"; if we can work together EACH TIME WE MEET to the benefit of everyone on the roads, then everyone gets everywhere quicker. In THE PARTICULAR SITUATIONS being considered, the car's width and the fact they hold you up sometimes is irrelevant.

Once again, would you cycle two abreast on all the roads I have just linked, with traffic you were aware of sitting behind you for miles on end?

 

[Saluki]

The advice is to ride no more than 2 abreast & not on narrow or busy roads. Legally I don't think there's anything stopping a group from riding in such a manner to take up all the lane, but that's hardly the polite thing to do.

Rule 66 of the highway code that.
I looked it up as I had some horrible woman lean on her horn for so long we thought that she'd dropped dead on it. Impatient cow in a Merc. My Dad always used to say "Where there's a Merc, there's a berk". It rang true today. We were 2 abreast on a dead straight, very quiet, wide country road. No sooner had numpty woman passed us she slammed on her anchors and then turned hard right into her drive. We had to brake to avoid her as we were not actually hanging about.
We reckon that she must have needed a wee, alternatively she must be one of those who think that they own the road.

 

[Hawk]

Oh sorry but I really can't be arsed to look at your links, we are discussing a matter of principle not individual instances.

Well not really, Beany said something equating to "there are some situations where 2 abreast ONLY holds up car drivers and does not enhance cycle safety". You proceeded to rebut him, suggesting your view is "2 abreast is fine, all the time". I am trying to work out why you might think that.

Could you summarise your view on cycling 2-abreast? "OK all the time", "appropriate the vast majority of the time", "sometimes helpful"..?

 

[Hawk]

Did I?

OK all of the time seems a reasonable starting point if you want me to pick one of your rules.

So on a narrow straight where being single file would allow a driver to overtake leaving 3ft of room; you'd still cycle two abreast and force them to wait behind or close pass? (I know you previously said such a situation is "unlikely" but if you don't want to look at the roads I thought of where this is the case, I can only assure you this situation does arise not too infrequently).

 

[growingvegetables]

For Hawk and Feastie - sorry, lads, but you failed. Think about "your convencience".

First - when you're driving up behind me riding 2 abreast, you haven't a bloody clue which of my children I'm cycling with ... the experienced cyclists or the inexperienced, or whether it's my ex-partner or my new partner, or .... anybody.

Second - there's a simple reason for the "bizarre" tandem question - the stoker was blind and the pair of us were manipulating the tandem to avoid him treading on my heels and losing his footing, to help me guide the bike as his white stick round the drain covers and gunk.

Looks like you didn't even think about it? Bit like the idiots who tried taking my kidneys out by passing so close that I was bellydancing? And I couldn't say a word, without freaking out my mate?


Bottom line - it's not for you, wanting to overtake, to judge the sanity or otherwise of the guys being overtaken. You wait until you can do it safely. End of.

OK - I know there's another bottom line. That I never cycle 2 abreast to p!$$ drivers off - only for good reason. But you cannot know that, and can't make assumptions.

 

[Nigel-YZ1]

All the time the majority see the words "Speed limit" and read "speed target" they clearly need to be set much lower on such roads.

Round here speed limit = target then add 10mph.

 

[Feastie]

Hmmm - so your convenience (and assumptions!) take priority? Not being rude ... just asking.

But you ducked my question about the tandem walkers. So come on - the guy on the back has high viz and helmet, both are grown men (but no, neither do lycra).

What's your reading of the situation? "Two adult men with a tandem, with a lot of space to move, easy to walk single file, well into the grass verge, leaving a straight, clear road with enough room for me to over take safely if they just went single file!" - would that be fair?

To be honest I'm not 100% sure how this is a similar situation, and I only didn't answer it because the answer didn't seem relevant (also I was in a rush!). If people are walking, running, pushing something or whatever, they can't really lessen their width by much with any ease. I mean, I think what you describe would be an unusual situation as the general instinct of people is to walk on the verge and have their bike on the road to keep a barrier between themselves and the traffic (and also it's easy for you to walk on a verge but the bike pretty much has to be on tarmac to be easy to move), but even doing what you say, they wouldn't really be sticking out that far. I really do think somebody in that situation would feel naturally compelled to try to minimise the amount they were on the road, however. I run along the side of the road and it's not a nice sensation at all being a pedestrian with cars whizzing past you. I always try to stay as close to the edge as I can within reason.

Somebody pushing a bike, or even two people pushing a bike, do not take up the same amount of space as two people cycling side by side - and even if they did, it's not that easy for the pushers to change the situation! You can't split the bike in half or anything, so it's sort-of moot. It doesn't really seem like a comparable thing to me because the whole reason why people cycling two-abreast is an issue is because cycling single file for a little bit is a very easy change. To NOT make the change is a discourtesy in the same way that two people passing in the street might each move slightly aside for each other rather than have one forced to stop, or barge shoulders.

For Hawk and Feastie - sorry, lads, but you failed. Think about "your convencience".

First - when you're driving up behind me riding 2 abreast, you haven't a bloody clue which of my children I'm cycling with ... the experienced cyclists or the inexperienced, or whether it's my ex-partner or my new partner, or .... anybody.

Second - there's a simple reason for the "bizarre" tandem question - the stoker was blind and the pair of us were manipulating the tandem to avoid him treading on my heels and losing his footing, to help me guide the bike as his white stick round the drain covers and gunk.

Looks like you didn't even think about it? Bit like the idiots who tried taking my kidneys out by passing so close that I was bellydancing? And I couldn't say a word, without freaking out my mate?

^^ Also, calm down my friend! If you read any of my replies, you'll notice that I agreed with you that both of those situations were not situations in which you'd get stressed out. It's very obvious in my opinion when somebody is dressed up in the gear of an 'elite' cyclist versus when they're not. In cases of doubt, err towards caution, but your average person who has no idea how to cycle isn't going to turn up in an all-in-one on a £1000 bike. And if they do turn up in an all-in-one on 60mph road riding a £1000 bike looking 6 foot tall, I don't feel it's a misjudgement to say they're very likely to know what they're doing.
No need to go on a mini-rant when people are agreeing with you, you just end up arguing with yourself!

 

[Nigel-YZ1]

I was driving down a road only a few feet wider than the car a while back. Two cyclists we're side by side ahead. I slowed down and pootled along enjoying the lovely day until the road widened a little.
The cyclists pulled over and waved me through.
I smiled, said a cheery thankyou and gave a thumbs up.
No-one died. No-one abused anyone.
The US did not have to invade the Peak District (there is oil under there, so that's a constant worry).

Just thought a nice story would help

 

[growingvegetables]

To be honest I'm not 100% sure how this is a similar situation

Entirely similar

- motorist approaching two cyclists, from behind, with no comprehension about why they're doing what they're doing.
- I'm asserting that any assumptions you make about "no discernable reason" for such behaviour may well be entirely unfounded; or quite beyond the driver's comprehension.
- and I'm also making the point that for too many people driving a car, they assume their own lack of perspicacity is an excuse for "teaching the cyclist what for".

Sorry, but I was precise about the details. Normal - two people pushing a tandem, walking on the left in the grass verge, bike just in the lane - less than 0.5 metre of the lane. Reality - two people as I described, taking at least 1.5 metre of the lane.

And you missed the details - while you had the time to read and think. 9 out of 10 drivers, actually on the road, didn't have the luxury of time to read and think. They assumed that because they couldn't discern a reason for the "odd" behaviour, they could therefore pass far too f*****g close to a guy guiding a blind guy.