New Forest sportive riders slammed by motorists for not riding single file

I particularly love the idea that this causes "anguish".

HTFU.

The number of clubs in my local area who have started doing "group riding" and "bunch skills" courses indicates that it is an issue.

Unless they can be accused of profiteering in the same way a sportive organiser can be !

I wonder what the traffic count of cars in the New Forest on Sundays would be.

Every weekday morning and evening the main (and side) roads leading into and around Shrewsbury are chock-a-block with cars.

No-one ever tells them that they should split up, travel in smaller groups, leave work at 15 minute intervals to avoid clumping or anything else to aid the passage of other road users so why should cyclists have to do it?

If it's a fully (but narrowish) two lane road (rather than a wide single lane road) riding two abreast should make the riders easier to overtake- there's often not room for two motor vehicles and a bicycle anyway, so riding two abreast the group is "shorter", meaning the motor vehicle can spend less time on the "wong" side of the road, surely?

Never ridden a sportive, audax or whatever you want to call them and probably never will.

As such i cant comment on who or what is at fault but can i just point out that in this day and age just about everyone complains about everything. Doesn't make them right though and that includes a lot of us.

@Simon E - "I wonder what the traffic count of cars in the New Forest on Sundays would be."

- Anyone with any sense doesn't go anywhere near the New Forest on a Sunday in school holidays or when it's sunny. Queues several miles long on the main roads are extremely common.

@nbrus - "So you do agree with me..."

...In a way, yes. But I disagree with the idea that encouraging close passing is usually a great idea, and I disagree with the idea that it's any road user's responsibility to allow the person behind them on the road to be able to come round corners at a speed at which they cannot cope with hazards in the road. Maybe I got the wrong end of the stick and that's not quite what you were saying, I dunno.

As an aside, I always find one of the most annoying things with groups is not how many abreast they are but simply whether they've thought about how a car needs to pass, which is to get past quickly and then pull in safely. Often there's not enough gap between one little pack and another one in front, or there's a straggler hanging off the back who's trying to keep up with someone else and sitting 20 or 30 yards off them (thus forcing either one extremely long pass or a dangerous cut-in) rather than falling back a bit more and allowing people to do the job in two shorter, safer passes.

Nic,

You seem to have a lack of understanding how to sensibly overtake cyclists according to the Highway Code as well as giving the impression you are not a very good driver if you can't deal with anything on the road when you go round a blind corner (maybe try going slower?). Try readying this website, it will tell you how you should overtake as well as why cyclists should ride two abreast: http://ukcyclelaws.blogspot.com/.

Quote:

It is all very different from a friend's experience riding in France. The local club went out and was 50 or 60 strong. When they turned crossed a dual carriageway, oncoming cars stopped so that the peleton would keep together. It's not a legal requirement but just a considerate action. How refreshing.

Agreed. In Spain it IS a legal requirement. A group of cyclists is treated in the same way as a large/long vehicle. So if the front rider goes through a green light which then changes to red, the rest of the peloton still has right of way so they can keep together. Same as if the cab unit of a lorry goes through and the light changes to red while his trailer is in the middle of the junction. It's a really refreshing attitude and as a result, everyone (cyclists and drivers) are far less stressed about it all.

If you can't safely overtake a "long vehicle" (be that a group of cyclists or a tractor/trailer) then you don't attempt to get past, it really is that simple.

I can't see why drivers will sit behind a tractor for 2 or 3 miles but will impatiently try to barge their way through a group of cyclists - it's exactly the same principle. If you can let the driver past then do so (single out, pull in, wave them through, whatever it may be) but if you can't it's hardly your fault or problem.

Having said that, I'm well aware that there are some cyclists out there too militant, stupid or unaware to behave in a considerate fashion so I can see how some motorists can get riled.

what i'm saying is changing the law because car drivers can't obey the law as it is isn't the solution.

Is there a solution?

Doesn't it make sense to cycle defensively and be prepared for the unexpected? ... we can't control how motorists behave, but we can control how we (cyclists) behave and take measures to reduce risk at every opportunity.

Nic,

It's true people make mistakes so why don't we force all drivers to drive at 10mph everywhere, that would stop mistakes right?

Drivers also have a choice to follow the Highway Code (just like cyclists do when riding two abreast) and drive an appropriate speed for the road conditions and slow down when approaching blind bends and overtake cyclists safely giving them the space they are entitled to as per the Highway Code.

Note my mentions of the Highway Code, please read it.

Highway Code Rule 66:

"You should never ride more than two abreast, and ride in single file on narrow or busy roads and when riding round bends…"

Trouble is cyclists don't stick to this rule and pack riding on a main roads is clearly in breach of the highway code (single file on busy roads).

... "busy" is another way of saying "traffic is present", so in this case single file riding when traffic is present seems to be an appropriate interpretation.

Two abreast on quiet country lanes is obviously fine, or on quiet stretches of any other road.

Highway Code Rule 163:
Give motorcyclists, cyclists and horse riders at least as much room as you would when overtaking a car (see Rules 211-215)

There is also a picture on the direct gov Highway Code website showing a car passing a cyclist with this amount of room, the car is almost all on the other side of the road, just as it would be if it were overtaking a car.

If a car is overtaking according to rule 163, it shouldn't matter if they are two abreast or not as they still occupy less space than an actual car and therefore the overtaking car won't notice the difference. Also they will be overtaking the group in half the distance.

If the cyclists are single file, it does encourage overtaking where there is not enough space to safely do so according to the rule 163 (as mentioned by Bez). You seem to suggest that when cycling in single file it was easier to pass as you could get closer to the cyclists safer, this is ignoring the Highway Code and most cyclists do not like being passed by cars very closely!

Yes, rule 66 says single file on busy roads but that doesn't mean any road with any car on it, it means busier than normal, otherwise it would have stated only two abreast on quiet roads. On average roads there will be cars which will drive up to a group and need to overtake, this does not make it a busy road and they should wait until they can safely overtake while giving the cyclists the same space as they would a car. If that means they have to wait 30 secs, they should wait.

Time for bed ... good night everyone.

Well I hope that my explanation of how the Highway Code states that motorists should overtake cyclists safely has settled a lot of the issues which people seem to have about this subject.

I think a lot of the misplaced anger is due to a misunderstanding or lack of knowledge of the rules and therefore hopefully the more people that become aware of them, the safer the roads will be for everyone.

When riding in busy cities, cyclists are usually the faster vehicle anyway so the cars should wait behind until they have room to overtake safely as the cyclists will probably end up catching them back up.

And if buses/cars don't overtake on the other side of the road, they are not doing so in a safe manner according to the Highway Code, therefore if any accident were to occur, they would be held responsible.

This thread clearly demonstrates why cyclists and drivers will never get along...

i'm a cyclist *and* a driver, and so are most of the people on the forum i expect. i can get along with cyclists just fine when i'm driving. it isn't that hard, really. the view that cyclists need to be restricted because motorists can't find it in themselves to drive safely isn't one i subscribe to.

I'm not a driver, but I do play one on TV. Therefore I can say, without a doubt, that cyclists should only ride in velodromes, and even there keep to the inside sprinters lane, just in case I feel like driving my car around the top, wall-of-death-style. Saying that that would be illegal is missing the point: one day someone will get it into their head to do that, and if you are riding your silly little tarck bikes, wearing your silly spandex, at the same time, well, you've only got yourself to blame.

</sarcasm>

The law doesn't restrict cyclists from riding up alongside a cement lorry at traffic lights ... do you think that is a good idea?

I don't think intentionally putting yourself in danger on a bike is a good idea, and i don't think legally restricting or blaming the victim is a good idea either

which is safer ... two cyclists single file alongside a cement lorry, or two abreast? or maybe a whole Peloton?