Is it acceptable for a group of circa 15 cyclists to cycle single file without leaving any gaps?

AndyIT wrote:

It's a thing; selfish cyling exists some just don't want to admit it. There are more selfish drivers than cycllists though. 

There's no 'relations' between drivers and cyclists. The vast majority of cyclists in the UK are also drivers. They are mostly the same people.

When I see a selfish driver, I don't think that they're letting me down as a fellow driver. I just think what an idiot.

I am sure there are selfish cyclists out there somewhere (I have yet to come across one). But if I did come across one, I can't think what a selfish cyclist could do that would be anywhere near as bad as what a selfish driver could get up to. I would just see a selfish person and would be grateful they're not in a car.

Yes!

Short - there is no us.

Slightly longer - there is some "selection" for cyclists in the UK - particularly "club cyclists" so it's not quite "cyclists have nothing more in common than people who happen to both drive do".

Almost every time I see complaints about this though I think "this is salience".  It's somehow very easy to see the cyclists when you're not happy with them.  And you remember that because it is very unusual, compared to people being selfish / stupid / even pushy in cars, at the supermarket, in a queue...

AndyIT wrote:

It's a thing; selfish cyling exists some just don't want to admit it. There are more selfish drivers than cycllists though. 

There's certainly selfish cyclists around, just like there's selfish pedestrians and roller-skaters too.

However, cycling in a single file of 15 is not selfish - it's just using the road. I'd consider it far more selfish if it was a line of 15 cyclists being stationary and preventing other traffic from moving, but that's more likely with motor vehicles due to their size. Strangely, people consider drivers "stuck in traffic" to be the victims rather than active participants in selfishly hogging the road.

AndyIT wrote:

I disagree; I do think it's selfish but legal. However just because something is legal is not a reason not to adopt more considerate behaviour (but that applies more to drivers than cyclists). 

I don't follow how it is selfish? 15 people on bikes will take up an equivalent space of maybe 3 cars which would typically be 3-4 people. That seems economical to me and choosing to use a car with only one or two occupants strikes me as extremely selfish, especially when you consider the pollution that they create.

I don't get why you're bringing the legality into this.

AndyIT wrote:

it's not hard to understand (just see previous comments) but some cyclists can't be bothered to be considerate just as some car drivers can't either....  I get it. 

Well 15 cyclists in a single file is legal as is 15 cars in a single file - legality is irrelevant to the question.

What cyclist behaviour would you think to be considerate and why is a single file not considerate?

AndyIT wrote:

Do you drive?. 

No, should I?

AndyIT wrote:

Do you drive?. scenairo 1 - 15 cyclists in a line make any safe overtaking impossible for a couple of miles; scenario 2 - cyclists split in into 2 groups allowing for some safe overtaking earlier on - cyclists reach their destination at pretty much the same time. Bit surprised you needed me to explain this, think a child would get it. 

Seems contrived to me. Overtaking 8 cyclists is hardly much difference to overtaking 15 cyclists assuming you leave suitable space. Meanwhile, splitting 15 cyclists into 2 groups means that you've got two cyclists at the front which is a more tiring position to take along with reduced aerodynamics for the two groups. Logically, if two groups of cyclists are better than one group, then shouldn't you be wanting them to separate entirely into 15 individuals?

Both seem inferior to scenario 3 to me - ride two abreast, thus maintaining both the group size the cyclists want and the group length to give drivers opportunity to overtake. 

However, while I wouldn't say riding 15 in single file is good roadcraft, have you considered that, while you thought this was selfish, perhaps they genuinely thought they were being considerate following the letter of the Highway Code:

"Be aware of drivers behind you and allow them to overtake (for example, by moving into single file or stopping) when you feel it is safe to let them do so"    

Yes, you say riding single file is inconsiderate; but I'm pointing out that Rule 66 specifically suggests the opposite, and that far from being selfish, they may actually have thought they were doing the considerate thing:  

You should... be considerate of the needs of other road users when riding in groups. You can ride two abreast and it can be safer to do so, particularly in larger groups or when accompanying children or less experienced riders. Be aware of drivers behind you and allow them to overtake (for example, by moving into single file or stopping) when you feel it is safe to let them do so 

Now obviously you were going to wait until you could cross the centre line to overtake, which I applaud, and in that case doubling up would arguably be more helpful - but I'm sure there are plenty of cyclists who think that singling out is actually the more considerate option to following drivers.   

AndyIT wrote:

'but I'm sure there are plenty of cyclists who think that singling out is actually the more considerate option to following drivers' as i have explained that would be incorrect and unlikely an option to be chosen as being considerate, asuming they drive as well cycle..  it's legal but not considerate. 

I sense very stroingly some cyclists can't be bothered to be considerate; some are though. It's a choice. 

I don't know if you are wilfully misunderstanding my (admittedly somewhat devil's advocate) point, so I'll try once more before giving up. You may think that 15 cyclists riding single file is inconsiderate and that anyone would be incorrect to think otherwise. But that view is at odds with what the Highway Code actually says - it suggests that to be considerate (it actually uses that word) when riding in groups, you should single out to allow drivers to overtake when safe.

Now for what it's worth, I actually agree with you that 15 riders in single file is sub-optimal and that the HWC wording is ,although now better, still problematic on this issue. I am simply pointing out that what you received as unthinking or deliberately obstructive behaviour could in fact have been intended as precisely the opposite - it could have been a conscious choice to do what the HWC says (rightly or wrongly) is considerate.      

A child knows this.
Eek !

Aargh!  Beetlejuice!

I don't know why, but I was drawn to reading this article again after reading through this thread...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sealioning

Yes, beginning to think so.

You seem to be ignoring that the Highway Code says it's both legal and considerate, because it contradicts your view.

If you'd bother to read my posts properly, I've already said I actually agree with you. But what you're failing to acknowledge is that the Highway Code actually says it's considerate. You posed a question and purported to be interested in others' views, but are clearly not actually here for a good faith discussion. Bye.      

AndyIT wrote:

it's not hard to understand (just see previous comments - imagine you wanted to cross a queue of people at e.g. a checkout - most peole will let someone go through a queue rather than making them walk around) but some cyclists can't be bothered to be considerate just as some car drivers can't either....  I get it. 

and almost every single car driver will block access into or out of a side road when they are in congestion, which is much more similar to your checkout queue situation. As the cyclists are not standing around blocking the space, they are progrerssing along the road. So It's more like if you are walking along the pavement and there is a large group ahead walking slower, filling the narrow pavement then you likely just slow down, you don't expect them to  stop and squeeze up against the wall to let yopu past, or single out, or split into smaller groups, you just slow down.

Lets not forget the main reason drivers can't get past is because they insist on travelling in a large box that takes all the space. If they were on a motorbike, they would likely pass the group of 15 cyclists single file without delay. The vast majority of cars on the road are single people not transporting lots of stuff

hawkinspeter wrote:

AndyIT wrote:

I disagree; I do think it's selfish but legal. However just because something is legal is not a reason not to adopt more considerate behaviour (but that applies more to drivers than cyclists). 

I don't follow how it is selfish? 15 people on bikes will take up an equivalent space of maybe 3 cars which would typically be 3-4 people. That seems economical to me and choosing to use a car with only one or two occupants strikes me as extremely selfish, especially when you consider the pollution that they create.

I don't get why you're bringing the legality into this.

if they are single file it could be more like 5 cars (depending on the gaps between cars)

AndyIT wrote:

I can't see relations between cyclists & car drivers getting any better

I'm both. Do I need to have a fight with myself?

Relations between different types of road users - and even between users of the same kind of vehicle - are totally reliant on the attitude of them as individuals.

Perhaps if the aggressive drivers took their cue from the Highway Code instead of the ranting anti-cyclist 'lycra lout' opinion columns in the Daily Mail etc then fewer drivers would view cyclists as an out-group. Similarly, when a driver or a family member becomes a cyclist they can then see both perspectives.

Groups of cyclists (not exactly a common sight on UK roads) splitting into smaller groups to appease the occasional Mr Angry isn't really going to have much of an impact on the concerning issue of why some people get aggressive so easily because they're behind a group of cyclists as opposed to any other slow-moving traffic.