- News
- Reviews
- Bikes
- Accessories
- Accessories - misc
- Computer mounts
- Bags
- Bar ends
- Bike bags & cases
- Bottle cages
- Bottles
- Cameras
- Car racks
- Child seats
- Computers
- Glasses
- GPS units
- Helmets
- Lights - front
- Lights - rear
- Lights - sets
- Locks
- Mirrors
- Mudguards
- Racks
- Pumps & CO2 inflators
- Puncture kits
- Reflectives
- Smart watches
- Stands and racks
- Trailers
- Clothing
- Components
- Bar tape & grips
- Bottom brackets
- Brake & gear cables
- Brake & STI levers
- Brake pads & spares
- Brakes
- Cassettes & freewheels
- Chains
- Chainsets & chainrings
- Derailleurs - front
- Derailleurs - rear
- Forks
- Gear levers & shifters
- Groupsets
- Handlebars & extensions
- Headsets
- Hubs
- Inner tubes
- Pedals
- Quick releases & skewers
- Saddles
- Seatposts
- Stems
- Wheels
- Tyres
- Health, fitness and nutrition
- Tools and workshop
- Miscellaneous
- Tubeless valves
- Buyers Guides
- Features
- Forum
- Recommends
- Podcast
news
Welcome to the New ForestNew Forest sportive riders slammed by motorists for not riding single file
A sportive event in the New Forest has come under fire, with motorists and farmers complaining that cyclists are inconsiderate when riding in the area.
The New Forest 100, which was held two weeks ago, was the latest cycle event to anger locals. Last year we reported how an increase in the number of cyclists there is posing a danger to pedestrians and livestock, according to the chairman of a body representing the rights of Commoners in the New Forest.
Frances Baye, a motorist, told the Salisbury Journal that she had been held up by the New Forest 100. She said: “I was trying to overtake the cyclists as I was approaching Burley and it was virtually impossible.
“A group of cyclists refused to get into single file and continued to overtake each other, despite knowing there was a queue of traffic behind them.
“I am not against these cyclists enjoying the fresh air and getting fit but think consideration has to be the priority.”
A resident, who asked not to be named, said: “Despite these types of events not being classed as a race, the competitors are consistently in a hurry to pass other competitors at speed and in large packs.
“They can cause anguish to Forest stock and other cyclists, including children, who are not involved in the race, as well as cars and other vehicles.
“Last weekend was really the last straw with a ridiculous numbers of competitors.
“There were as many as four cyclists abreast on each side of the road; they were nearly crashing into each other at speed, going downhill, never mind the traffic trying to go up and down the road.
On the cycling section of its website, the New Forest National Park Authority says “You are welcome to cycle on public roads, byways open to all traffic, public bridleways, restricted bridleways, and dedicated cycle routes. You are not permitted to ride over the Open Forest, or on Forestry Commission tracks which are not dedicated cycle routes. Cycling on public footpaths is also not permitted.”
The National Park’s boundaries roughly correspond to the area of heathland and woodland within which some 500 commoners are entitled to graze livestock including cattle, donkeys, pigs, sheep and, most famously, ponies.
Last year, Dr Graham Ferris, Dr Graham Ferris, chairman of the New Forest Commoners’ Defence Association (NFCDA), established in 1909 “in response to the increasing conflict between the spreading urban populations around the New Forest’s fringes and the commoners’ animals,” said that the number of cyclists riding in the New Forest nowadays meant that “The roads are effectively obstructed and confrontations leading to a breach of the peace are likely.”
Concern for livestock was cited then and now as reasons to keep cyclists in line during mass events.
But data compiled by the New Forest National Park Authority clearly demonstrate that it is motorists, not cyclists, who pose by far the the greater risk to livestock in the Forest.
During 2009, 24 foals and 41 mares were either killed outright or had to be put down following collisions with motor vehicles in the New Forest. There were no reported occurrences of animals being killed in incidents involving cyclists.
Director of UK Cycling Events, organisers of the New Forest 100, Martin Barden said: “Some 1,300 people took part in the New Forest 100, many of whom travelled from all over the country to take part, to experience the beautiful national park and assist the local economy in these difficult times.
“There are one or two people who live in the New Forest who believe they own the New Forest roads.
“The roads are public highways and cyclists have every right to cycle along them and get fit and enjoy the New Forest.
“The event on Sunday was a non-competitive event, with riders’ start times spread out from 7.30am to 10.15am.
“As per our terms and conditions, anyone who is deemed to be racing would be disqualified.
“We ask cyclists to ride considerately and in single file where possible, although riders are legally allowed to ride two abreast.”
As well as the New Forest 100, UK Cycling Events runs the Wiggle New Forest Spring Sunday Sportive, and it is also home to the New Forest Rattler and a recent ride out with the Garmin pro team.
Latest Comments
- perce 1 hour 28 min ago
Oh god is he still here? Still not found a publisher for his stories?
- chrisonabike 3 hours 34 sec ago
You've been quoted in the article as being concerned "about the safety of cyclist and vehicles”....
- S.E. 7 hours 42 min ago
My guess is that they sell mainly on the German market - feel free to correct me. That might explain why they are not "pushing" their products,...
- ktache 8 hours 7 min ago
Now Emily Chappell really liked the Lezyne , I have the HV version, good, but I find the handle uncomfortable in use. I've often wondered about the...
- biking59boomer 7 hours 15 min ago
What about this one!? Taken in Cardiff Civic Centre 1939
- Muddy Ford 8 hours 18 min ago
Charlie Alliston got 18mths and is the reference case (because there are so few cases) for all campaigns by anti-cyclists that 'cyclists are not...
- belugabob 9 hours 19 min ago
My local football practice pitches (all weather, in a fenced off area, are regularly the scene of inconsiderate parking, with vehicles blocking the...
- Spangly Shiny 9 hours 44 min ago
Assos ASOS anyone?
- chrisonabike 9 hours 58 min ago
Replace them all with Bromptons and they'd take up zero space within days or even hours, as they are all relocated elsewhere. To eBay or possibly...
- Andrewbanshee 10 hours 29 min ago
Where I live we are experiencing a lot of housing development on small and large plots of land. These developers don't seem to have problems...
Add new comment
156 comments
I try and explain why drivers are irritated by cyclists riding two abreast and all I hear back is the highway code being quoted. If you are determined to continue frustrating other road users because the rules give you a means to do so, then you will solve nothing. Drivers and cyclists will continue to infuriate each other.
It should now be clear why I suggested the laws should be changed to prevent two abreast cycling when traffic is present. Cyclists seem oblivious to the hazard that two abreast cycling presents, and are unwilling to compromise on their position because "the rule book says". Well the rule book doesn't say that cyclists 'should' cycle two abreast and hold up other traffic, it merely allows them to do so if they choose to do so.
Now, where did I put my Axe...
Look, you explain your opinion on why you think drivers are irritated, I understand your opinion, I just don't agree with it, I think it is because they do not know or understand the rules which is why I quote them.
If we just take the cycling two abreast out of the equation for a minute, can we try and agree how drivers should overtake according to the rules?
I've tried to attached the photo from the gov website (if it hasn't worked, google Highway Code rule 163). Looking at this, and the text underneath which says "Rule 163: Five vulnerable road users at least as much space as you would a car", I interpret that to mean that if a driver overtakes a cyclists, they should imagine there was a car there and take the same line around the cyclist and they would do if that car were there instead.
There is no mention of giving less space in traffic, or overtaking closer if there's no break across the other side of the road, no mention or diagram of straddling the white line, Rule 163 says that if you overtake a cyclist (or other vulnerable road user) you should leave as much room as if there was a car there.
If you're still of the opinion that drivers can overtake any closer than that, you are breaking this rule. Once you've understood this rule, we can then talk about cycling two abreast but if you cannot change your opinion even after being presented with facts then there is little point.
Normally I would say that you're entitled to your opinion by the way, it's just in this case it puts the lives of others at risk.
Overtake_0.jpg
/slits wrists
Tell me about it! Maybe a diagram will help (please forgive my rubbish paint skills).
On the left is a car overtaking a car, on the right is a car overtaking a cyclists. The overtaking car is in the same place for both overtakes, this is what I've been trying to explain.
Do you understand the overtaking rule now?
OvertakeComparison_3.jpg
In April of this year I was the lucky recipient of a three day cycling break in Mallorca, thanks to road.cc . Yup, its as good as I've heard but there quite a bit of signage for cyclists. Mainly to stay single file through twisty or narrow bits. It works. Most of time car drivers (of which I'm one) have the road to themselves and don't have to navigate around slower vehicles, it happens but is not the norm. Hence,some ill advised and foolish individuals take it upon themselves to crusade against cyclists after an event such as the new forest 100. What it takes is a bit cash, education and thought. How hard could it be ? (yeah right - may be ten years from now). Great ride by the way.
I rode across the New Forest last Sunday (on my own, although I was participating in a 200km event)
Utterly appalled by the consideration shown to other road users by both pedestrians and car drivers.
At one point a lady of "mature years", one of a group of ramblers stepped off the grass verge along which they were walking, straight into the road in front of me for no apparent reason and without looking. Evidently relying on hearing any approaching cars? If she'd done it half a second later I'd not have had time to swerve and she'd have got one of my aero bars where it was never supposed to go.
Several ludicrous overtakes (by the usual large German cars) on blind bends, in the face of oncoming traffic (causing it to have to brake sharply), at places where there were ponies close on either side of the road.
In every case it seemed to gain them about 20 metres before coming up behind another car that was driving within the 40 mph limit. Still at least they got past that pesky cyclist.
Frankly if that's the standard of driving we can expect in the NF then cyclists are safer in large packs which inconvenience other road users.
Having grown up in the New Forest I can attest that most of the people who used to live there - who used to have an understanding of New Forest ponies, badgers, squirrels, pedestrians and all other things non 4x4 - have been squeezed out by the super-rich.
Once I was able to cycle no-handed (No-handed means you can steer, but are slower at braking. Great for cycling. Lethal in traffic)through the quieter country lanes with the knowledge that by the time I heard a car heading my way, my hands would be back on the handlebars.
Nowadays, as I cycle cautiously along with my fingers on the brakes, I fear every corner, as there's a likelyhood that some git with 'roo-bars' will come hurtling round it at 50mph+ - on MY side of the road.
Conclusion?
They paid for the car. They own the road.
The solution:
More Real) tractors, hauling more (Real) silage.
Please refer to Rule 163: "...give motorcyclists, cyclists and horse riders at least as much room as you would when overtaking a car..." The picture on the website is an *example* where the car is giving the cyclist MORE than the minimum space ("at LEAST as much room") stated in Rule 163. This rule is very clear.
Definition of "space" ...
"continuous area or expanse which is free, available, or unoccupied"
No, I can show you a picture of how the Highway Code says you should overtake cyclists, please see above.
I'm bored with all this tennis...
I found my Axe ... it was in the glovebox.
Ultimately, The New Forest is a national park, and it thrives on tourism, visitors, it has websites encouraging us to visit, walk, drive and cycle around it, camp and caravan in it, and engage in a whole number of leisure activities there. Maybe it's down to those businesses that need visitors to survive to stick their heads above those who are complaining and acting in a dangerous manner and let the world know whether The New Forest is a good place to visit or not?
No disagreement there ... but this doesn't always mean you need to be on the other side of the road ... a minimum of 1 meter of clearance would appear to be in line with the photo and is about the same space motorists would leave another vehicle. Obviously, this would depend on the situation, but leave more room if possible.
Please don't rubbish your paint skills ... they are much better than mine ... probably because of the number of times you have drawn your diagrams.
From your very own Blog...
Rule 163: "...give motorcyclists, cyclists and horse riders at least as much room as you would when overtaking a car..."
Looking at your diagrams, even I can see that the gap between the cyclist and car on the right diagram is about three times the size of the gap between the two cars in the left diagram?
You are correct, the rule is very clear, you just don't seem to get it. I assume people like you are the reason they bothered to go out, take a photo and put it on the website to back up the words with an illustration. It's just a shame that this seems wasted on you too as you interpret that the car is giving the cyclist more than the mininum space rather than accept that the picture is showing you the minimun space.
Point taken, I am too. I think I've said all I can to show how to overtake safely, if it's still not enough then I doubt anything else I say will make a difference either.
good night
Please re-read Rule 163...
[[[[[ But, Nbrus, you said earlier that "two cyclists abreast are difficult to spot". YIKES! Not much chance of you spotting me, then, if I'm riding single-file....
P.R.
It's clear there is still a disagreement, I don't think the car needs to be on the other side of the road as large roads mean that giving the same room means only the rigt tyre needs to be over the line, what I'm talking about are average roads which mean the car needs to cross the line.
What we seem to disagree about is this depend on situation thing, the rule doesn't say that, it simply says leave the space.
Given the rule, do you agree that, no matter what the vehicle, cars should take the same line around it when overtaking?
I see where our difference of views is, you are still thinking of overtaking in terms of the gap to give the cyclist, if the cyclist is almost touching the kerb, the driver can overtake without crossing the white line.
This is where you misunderstand the rule and picture, what it is saying is what I've been saying, regardless of road position, vehicle, size etc, drivers should overtake giving the same space as they would another car. This means that they take the same line around the vehicle they're overtaking.
To illustrate this I created that diagram which you rightly point out leaves a large gap between the car and the cyclist but this is by design and I think that's the space cars should give if they're following the same line.
You may think that this is due to my diagrams not being to scale or me not getting the point properly so I've crudely edited the photo from the Gov website to further explain, on the left is the car overtaking another car, obviously it's the same car but flipped and pasted over the cyclist. The picture on the right is the original, showing where you are meant to overtake a cyclist. Obviously the overtaking car is on the same line, I'm trying to show they could be overtaking a cyclist, a car, a horse etc but it shouldn't affect the line they take around them.
Do you now understand?
Overtakebikecar.jpg
Can you show me a picture a car giving another car the same *minimum* space as the cyclist in your picture while overtaking safely?
"at least as much room as you would when overtaking a car"
Please READ the caption on that photo ... it makes no mention that it shows the *minimum* space ... in fact the wording is exactly as stated in rule 163 ... please read that rule again.
I am too...
Please read Rule 163 again ... good night.
And two abreast cyclists means that vehicles need an extra 1.5 meters (to the right) to overtake safely...
Only if you look at the picture to go with it! night.
You still don't get it, regardless of what a driver is overtaking, I'm saying that they should take the same line around. Am I not saying it right?
Only if you paint another picture showing a car overtaking another car with the same minimum space they would give a cyclist. good night.
Thankfully I don't have to, the Highway Code provided a pic to show it. night night.
I found it...
We both know that's not what's in question. You can keep saying it but I think we all know the rules now, even if you won'd admit them. I'm so bored now though
Pages