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

[Nigel-YZ1]

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.

She was probably wanting to switch the thing off before the electrics broke down again.

 

[Feastie]

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.

Okay well I'm very sorry that happened to you, but it wasn't like it was ME that drove close to you! No idea why you're going on about it and somehow linking it in. I'm not even talking about trying to justify over taking too close to people, I never even mentioned it and I think it's very dangerous. My whole point is that I *DON'T* over take (because the cyclists have made it impossible for me to do so safely by cycling next to each other) and therefore the frustration is caused o_O Not going to repeat myself about how I think it's fine to push a bike along the side of a road and why. As for missing the details, what was I meant to do, repeat the numbers back to you?? I read your post (all of it) and I explained my response.

As for whether you want to assume that every single person cycling side by side presents a total enigma 100% of the time, it's up to you. I personally think that it's not unreasonable to make assumptions based on evidence in terms of what they're riding and what they're wearing where they're wearing very expensive professional kit and on professional bikes. As for how long you have to think about it, you've usually got a very long time because you're crawling along very slowly behind them. Although really, you don't need very long at all as a driver to figure it out, because most professional lycra is usually pretty neon and covered in logos, and it's easy to see the profile of a top spec bike!

So gripe all you want about people making dangerous over takes because you're talking about something completely different to what I'm talking about.

 

[srw]

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

I, on the other hand, did. As Hawk would know if he's read the thread. And I make him dangerously wrong on number 3 (already posted), and probably wrong on 1 and 2. In each case a car will need to slow down to overtake.

 

[Lurker]

.... 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.

This ^^^^^^

 

[Hawk]

I, on the other hand, did. As Hawk would know if he's read the thread. And I make him dangerously wrong on number 3 (already posted), and probably wrong on 1 and 2. In each case a car will need to slow down to overtake.

I agree with you and I did see your post - how does riding two abreast for miles on end make a difference there though?

 

[Pedrosanchezo]

Guys this is an interesting thread. There are a few differences in opinion though and i don't think that a middle ground will be found TBH.

IMO it's in all of our interests to read the situation (or the road) as we experience it.

If we choose to ride 2 abreast regardless of the road situation then i would personally consider this potentially dangerous. Mostly to the cyclist. Some roads and situations will simply not lend itself to safely doing so. Some will but by no means all.

If a pair of cyclists stay two abreast, for example going round a blind corner, how can they be sure that some driver is going to come round the same corner with caution? I believe the mistake with this is thinking that you have as much right to this position on the road as a motorist. This is entirely correct. Though i am sure i would never do it because i simply don't trust my life with some random driver whom i have no idea how alert, awake or competent behind the wheel they are. As the cyclist, YOU are going to be the one who gets hurt. The driver can be sent to jail and learn his lesson but you may well still be dead!! For this reason i would ALWAYS side with caution. You also have no idea what is coming the other way and if said driver cannot stop in time and there is a car coming the other way, you will likely find that once again the cyclist will be the one who comes off worse.

I'd far rather a stupid "near pass" than a driver running me over because they were driving like idiots and i was in the primary position (two abreast) without considering the possible risks.

Cyclists have as much right to the road but the same road is a lot less forgiving. Be safe.

 

[growingvegetables]

My whole point is that I *DON'T* over take (because the cyclists have made it impossible for me to do so safely by cycling next to each other) and therefore the frustration is caused

Feastie – I'm not trying to jump down your throat, and certainly not cast aspersions on your driving. I'm just trying to point out how easily and quickly an assumption of “motor vehicle priority” slips casually into discourse ----- nothing personal, honest!

Just a few quotes from the thread
“cyclists ride two a breast, deliberately, to antagonise.”
“deliberately for extended periods of time, when unnecessary clearly to deliberately antagonise motorists.”
“I'd hope cyclists in extreme such situations would be prosecuted for inconsiderate cycling.”
“If you sit single file, cars will often not be delayed at all.”
“because cyclists are riding next to each other for no real reason, and it's not possible to overtake.”
“It is inconsiderate to the max”
“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.”
“the times I've seen it, a reason has not been evident!”
“If somebody is protecting another vulnerable person I don't think you'd get many complaints from anybody.”
“There is ... no reason not to go single file.”


My emphases - in my roundabout way, I'm trying to make the point that it's all too easy (for all of us) to let a casual assumption of motor vehicle priority slip by insidiously. I guess it's clear that I'm uncomfortable.

Cyclists should “never ride more than two abreast”. That's clear enough - all cyclists can cycle (almost) all the time two abreast. They don't need any reason to do it, no more reason than that it's a simple and natural way of cycling sociably. Perfectly legal. Acceptable - hey, and it's bloody good fun; I enjoy cycling with a partner or two.

[Digressions​

• there's nothing wrong with being willing to add some courtesy, and pull in to single file to allow vehicles to pass. But that is an extra gesture, that I MAY give (and usually do), at a time of my choice, depending on my assessment of my (or my cycling partner's) safety. Driver impatience is the last of my concerns.
• and my (or my cycling partner's) safety is my priority.]

But how easily did drivers' perceptions of cyclists only being permitted to go two abreast, if they have a “decent” reason slip into the thread, with a fair sprinkling of "indecent" reasons thrown in? Despite drivers not having the information to make an informed judgement about the cyclists in front of them?

Hey - there are limitations. Cyclists should “ride in single file on narrow or busy roads and when riding round bends.” And that reads very differently, depending on the assumptions we bring to it.

• If riding two abreast is a perfectly natural, sociable way to cycle, acceptable and legal, it means - “Watch out – there are places you don't do it. Single track country roads with passing places? A-roads with a heavy volume of mixed traffic (including lorries and buses)? Bends where visibility is restricted? Use your bl**dy head, mate - there's places it's just not safe!” Criterion – safety.

• BUT – if we start with the “careless language” that slipped in (cyclists need to have a discernible reason, two abreast is deliberate antagonism and wilful obstruction, and the like)? Then "narrow" means anything less than a motorway carriageway's width; my car/van counts as "busy"; even the gentlest high visibility curve counts as a "bend". Criterion – driver priority and convenience.

Guess it's clear what assumptions I bring to it!

 

[Hawk]

That's inconsiderate driving - not cycling. You can't be done for motoring offences when using a bicycle.

Sorry, wrong link

http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1988/52/section/29 for careless
http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1988/52/section/28 for dangerous

 

[Hawk]

Note that tricky word "reasonable"

Thanks for another patronising post that fails to address any of the counterarguments I brought up earlier.

I maintain that it there are some circumstances when it is unreasonable to ride 2-abreast for prolonged periods of time. I have already explained these circumstances above but you

really can't be arsed to look at your links

I don't think we'll agree on this and, with respect, I don't think we'll even get a constructive debate out of it with an attitude such as yours; so I once again bow out of this thread (as I had quietly done previously until User asked me to clarify a technical point/"typo" I brought up earlier.)

All the best

 

[growingvegetables]

I maintain that it there are some circumstances when it is unreasonable to ride 2-abreast for prolonged periods of time.

So .... law can be invoked when it's shown OBJECTIVELY that the riding 2-abreast is careless/dangerous. No probs.

But you're extending this to cover "circumstances when it is unreasonable".

OK - when is it "unreasonable"? More to the point - when is it reasonable?

 

[Pedrosanchezo]

This seems safe enough, right??

View: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4EQUlXawRBE

 

[Theseus]

This seems safe enough, right??
View: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4EQUlXawRBE

Not quite sure what this has to do with the subject under discussion. With it not being on UK roads.

 

[Pedrosanchezo]

Not quite sure what this has to do with the subject under discussion. With it not being on UK roads.

Just trying to bring a bit of humour to the thread.
I'll go back outside.

 

[Hawk]

So .... law can be invoked when it's shown OBJECTIVELY that the riding 2-abreast is careless/dangerous. No probs.

But you're extending this to cover "circumstances when it is unreasonable".

OK - when is it "unreasonable"? More to the point - when is it reasonable?

I agree with your points.

I think in general it is reasonable, but there are some cases when it is BLATANTLY unreasonable; this was my point above addressed to those who claim it is "reasonable all the time". I would've quite been up for a constructive debate as to where to draw the line in fact.

I think being "selfless" is a good start. Everyone is entitled to a safe journey so where 2-abreast keeps us safer, it is reasonable.

After that, I think we all need to see our journeys as equal. It would be unreasonable to refuse to accept 2-3 seconds of delay (slowing to slot in to single file) to prevent several minutes of delay to trailing vehicles (whether they be car, HGV, motorcycle or just faster cyclists).

Again, a "common sense" approach whereby we can see the point of view of other vehicles and act accordingly at all times on the road - whether that be to move to intentionally cause insignificant delay by, for example, moving to primary before a driver might want to be squeezing by when unsafe, or moving to single file to make it easier to overtake on a country road when it is safe.

What I really despise on the roads is any road user thinking they are superior - we see it all the time, for example: "You don't have a say on the roads because we pay for them", MGIF attitudes and SMIDGAF incidents. All us regular cyclists know such an attitude is counterproductive to both road safety and general harmony on the roads, so why do some cyclists fling this attitude back at car drivers with 2abreast riding when it is CLEARLY unreasonable, red light jumping (as the "laws don't apply to us", because we're obviously superior?) and the like.

 

[mcshroom]

There's a local road shut round my way (a house collapsed) so the traffic in the main road is jammed solid each evening. This is always a pain as a large number of rat runners then try and drive the narrow, twisty and in places steep roads at full speed to beat the traffic jam, and these drivers are a self selecting group that include a larger than normal percentage of dangerous aggressive idiots.

After being close passed on the steep hill out of the now rat-ruined village I've taken to riding up in primary. Is this 'unreasonable'? I'd have a bet that the drivers behind think it is.

You can squeeze a car and bike through if they both cooperate, and I usually do, but I refuse to have these queue jumpers putting me in more danger.