- 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
- S.E. 1 sec ago
I'm thinking CX tyres...
- kingleo 11 min 10 sec ago
Crossing the road is the big danger for pedestrians, not the cycle path.
- Hirsute 1 hour 29 min ago
More of an oblique reference to a cyclist being taken out when in the cycle lane in the same scenario. Of course the cyclist pretty much gets the...
- Jaijai 1 hour 40 min ago
How many have you seen posted on Social media with cars ? The police don't handle this well in any way .Wether it's cars or bikes. This is a not to...
- slc 3 hours 6 min ago
Lavable neigbourhoods? Could be handy on bins day
- chrisonabike 4 hours 22 min ago
Wait - have those wafers been upgraded to chocolate wafers now (or maybe those pink ones?) Or is it all the sugar in the communion wine?
- Scribe Cycling 5 hours 6 min ago
Hi username983, thank you for the comment, and it's great to hear you rate the wheels. The new models have a slightly different design which come...
- wtjs 5 hours 27 min ago
I'm pleased to say I didn't 'do' Latin, but I was also pleased to learn the origin of 'laconic'
- Surreyrider 5 hours 32 min ago
Looks like Specialized dusted off their blueprint for the Tarmac circa 2012-14 to 'create' the Aethos.
- Tom_77 5 hours 38 min ago
Was looking for things to do in Winchester and came across this - Adrenaline Comedy Bike Tour Experience at B3335...
Add new comment
156 comments
To actually stay out of the way all cyclists would have to stay off the road, which seems a bit extreme.
If you see the picture of the car overtaking the cyclist on the Highway Code website (which I've also put on my blog), you'll see that there is enough room for two cyclists. The point is that they shouldn't be straddling the middle line, they should be well over the other side, the car in the picture only has it's left hand wheels on the middle line, not straddling it. By singling out, you encourage cars to do exactly what you say and even worse, some cars don't even dip their right hand wheels over the line as they don't think they need to.
Cars should give as much space to us as they do other cars to overtake us safely, anything less and it is not safe. And if they do overtake on the other side of the road as they should, being in two files means they spend half of the amount of time over there. As I said, I love repeating myself.
Only if you are paying attention...
And cyclists should give cars as much space as they can to assist cars in passing them safely and quickly.
So you're saying laws should be put in place to change cyclists' road rights in case drivers aren't paying attention?
Nope, but if it encourages safer cycling, then yes.
+1 for any just about any point counter to what Nic is saying.
Are you really saying that close passing is ok because they manage it on the Tour, where the rider in question is in the middle of the road away from any drains and potholes and broken glass, where the road is closed so there is no oncoming traffic that may cause some swerving, and where the vehicle in question is there precisely for the purpose of getting that rider to the end of the race quickly and safely? If you think that's any sort of analogue to road riding then frankly you're on crack. If a cyclist is forced into the gutter at 20mph by a car doing 21mph, who by your logic can safely pass within a gnat's knob of his bars, then that's not safe. Not remotely.
Anyway, the New Forest. It's fantastically Nimbyish, I used to ride there a lot (more off-road) and you never felt welcome if you were on a bike. That said, I hate riding in large groups because I know that it irritates drivers, and I know as a driver that most groups don't do anything (or even think about doing anything) to help anyone get past safely.
So you do agree with me...
Great comments as always on here - honestly cant say anything that hasn't already been said.
Haven't done a sportif yet (ex roadie here) and Im on the fence mostly due to the large volume of inexperienced group riding cyclists - having been taken out by one earlier this year I may just stick to solo/club runs..
I remember on the Wicklow 200 this year, the car in front of me would not pull over to one side and let me pass. In the end, I gave up and thought of Sparticus, went for gold but nearly lost it on the verge overtaking, a scary moment. Coming out of Avoca after those never ending hills(hate them seem to go on forever). After those climbs, I was like a demon and embellished the slopes. Hit a tee junction, travelling way too fast, locked up the back wheel in a controlled slide but no amount of crunching numbers in quantum physics in my mind as my life flashed in front of my eyes would prevent this accident. The female motorist ahead of me was like predictive text,very smart and gave me the right of way(I was totally in the wrong).The Tee junction just came out of the blue and I was on a mission. There was no way I was going to make it even with the back wheel locked up. I love the Shimano RS30s and I know they are bullit proof. Was not really wanting to test them out out with an impact collision.
I can laugh now but bless that woman, she saved my ass. Forever grateful! Some motorists are good and some bad I guess. Can not knock them all.
The new forest isn't the only place with livestock on it and is popular with cyclists, and is also used by motorists, so why is it so consistently seen as a problem there?
pea brained motorists in thinking they own every road shocker, got news for you, you don't.
@Stewie:
Lets look at the reality of the situation...
As a car driver if you come around a corner and find a pair of cyclists in front of you with oncoming traffic you will panic and if you aren't paying attention you could end up ploughing into those cyclist as there will be nowhere for you to go. Yes, you may very well be at fault, but this won't affect what may happen to those cyclists. Humans make errors.
When it comes to overtaking, it is possible to slow right down to similar speed as a single file cyclist and carefully move past with much less space than normally required when travelling at speed. You cannot attempt such a manoeuvre when cyclists are two abreast, so traffic will build up behind them. Most cars that overtake me when I'm cycling don't move fully over to the other lane ... how much room they give me is directly proportional to their speed. In the Tour-de-France, cyclists often ride up alongside support vehicles to top up on their hydration. This is pretty safe to do as they are going at the same speed with no sudden movement.
If you are caught in the opposite lane overtaking a pack of cyclists, where do you go? You're stuck and have to hope that the oncoming traffic can brake before hitting you. If cyclists are in single file, then you can slow down to their speed and move across to the same lane as far as reasonable without causing an accident, hopefully leaving enough room for oncoming traffic to squeeze past. Yes this would be poor judgement when choosing a safe place to overtake, but the reality is that this happens. Humans make mistakes. Cyclists need to account for this when out on the roads.
Cycling two abreast exposes the cyclist to greater risk as well as making it more likely that other road users will take risks in order to get past. This will make accidents more likely ... that's the reality, regardless of whom is to blame. If I was forced to cycle two abreast I'd make sure I was on the inside.
In the light of all these issues, the local region has stopped all racing in the forest except for a couple of short evening events, and then not in mid-summer. This is simply because the forset is an area which has been overtaken by all kinds of recreational events (not just cycling). I think there is a triathlon or two, and what LVRC/TLI do I don't know. You could say that the mass participation events which are good in that it allows everyone to access the sport, have actually had a bad effect on racing.
This has not just happened in the forest, a race in the south west was cancelled because it clashed with a sportive, and the police having no way of stopping the sportive, revoked permission for the race. Interesting approach, and one which we may find increasing, so where's road racing going?
perhaps there is a need for some proper co-ordination, and a bit of imagination so that organisers communicate and don't use the same or very similar routes all the time?
If nothing happens, eventually I can see the time when the government will start legislating, restricting routes, numbers, and all kinds of stuff. Best we put our own house in order first.
PaulVWatts wrote; "If there is no pavement a rambler is, as you put it, a ROAD USER and has as much right to use the road as a cyclist."
If the pavement peters out pedestrians/walkers/Ramblers are required by the Highway Code to walk on the right hand side of the road in single file facing the oncoming traffic.
If they are in an organised group, which should apply to Ramblers I suppose, then they should walk on the left hand side of the road and have look-outs posted at the front and rear of the group.
They have no right to sprawl themselves across the road and expect other ROAD USERS to play slalom around them.
If you are going to quote the highway code get it right:
If there is no pavement, keep to the right-hand side of the road so that you can see oncoming traffic. You should take extra care and be prepared to walk in single file, especially on narrow roads or in poor light keep close to the side of the road.
It may be safer to cross the road well before a sharp right-hand bend so that oncoming traffic has a better chance of seeing you. Cross back after the bend.
So single file is not required by law. Right hand side of the road? depends on the circumstances on some bends on country lanes the code recognises it would actually be suicidal. Your reaction is just as bad as the I pay road tax brigade. All the person I commented on needed to do was slow down to a speed that allowed the walkers to get out of the way and for him to easily maneuver around them. Just what we cyclists would like most car drivers to do.
It should be made an offence for cyclists not to move into single file when faster moving traffic approaches ... imagine coming round a bend, at a legal speed, only to be confronted by a pack of slow moving cyclists taking up the full width of the lane ... they are a danger to themselves and others. Even two abreast this is still not a safe way to ride on the public highway. Yes there are some idiot drivers out there too, but that doesn't mean we need to be idiots too.
Exactly, drivers do their bit. BUT we need to do ours as well.
Hmm, not sure if trolling or just stupid...
How do you propose that this law is to be enforced? Presumably by the same police force that ensure that no motorist ever breaks the speed limit or drives while under the influence/using a mobile/uninsured?
Is it not more dangerous to have one long line of single file than one short line of double file? Single file means you've just doubled the distance you need to drive on the opposite side of the road to do a safe overtake.
@crazy-legs:
Hmm, not sure if you're stupid...
so you're saying that speed limits are pointless because the police have a hard time enforcing them?
On a reasonably wide road it is possible to move safely and slowly past single file cyclists even when there is oncoming traffic and if you do find yourself overtaking on the other side of the road, then there is still a possibility to pull in and avoid a collision.
Obviously not the case on a narrow road, but with pack cyclists you have no options but to wait for a very long gap in the traffic with plenty of clear road ahead ... a pretty rare occurrence, so traffic simply queues up behind.
You're obviously of an opinion that you can do as you please because the current law allows it. That's not helpful at all.
As I alluded to in my other post, if you are less than 3 feet from the cyclists, then you are not overtaking safely. The cyclists should also be 3ft from the kerb or verge, and have their own width of up to two feet. Would you care to point out where in the UK has single-carriageway lanes that are 7-8 feet wider than a family car?
What's the difference between going around a blind corner to find a "slow moving" bunch - I'd add that most club rides and sportive bunches will be doing around 20mph on the flat - and finding a crashed or broken down car, or other obstruction? Answer: None. If the corner is blind, you should travel around it at a speed such that you can stop if there is an unseen obstruction.
Secondly, what's the difference between a bunch in single file and a bunch in double file? Well, the single file bunch is twice as long. If you want to overtake safely, you should be leaving at least 3-4 feet between the left side of your car and the nearest cyclist. A cyclist is around 20-22" wide at the shoulders and handlebars, and should be at least 3 feet from the kerb/verge. This means whether the cyclists are double or single file, you should be overtaking by using at least part of the other lane. A single file group is twice the length, so you will have to go twice as much time and distance while at least partially occupying the other lane. I would therefore conclude that safely and legally overtaking a single-file group is more dangerous than a safe and legal overtake of a double-file with the same number of people.
Double-file groups also give more opportunity to rotate those working on the front (by chaingang-style rotation), meaning such groups are may be faster and encounter less motorised traffic.
Why, therefore, do you think that riding double file is "not a safe way to ride on the public highway"?
Drive/ride appropriate to the conditions and consider all road users.
One can dream...
Presumably, if a car was coming so fast that he would be unable to cope when confronted by a pack of slow moving cyclists he would somehow be able to cope with a car driving in the same manner as him? It could easily be a horse, a group of ramblers or a child around that corner.
If the lanes are slow, drivers should slow down and cyclists should also think ahead.
There were earlier in the posts arguments about 50m of cyclists riding two abreast. Presumably this would become at least 100m if riding in single file. I'm not sure if that would help.
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.
I'm imagining that.
if you're driving too fast to stop for a group of slow moving cyclists, you're driving too fast. period.
what if the group of slow moving cyclists is a pack of not-moving ponies? or a man getting the jack out of the boot of his car because he has a flat tyre? is it their fault when you plough into them because you're driving 'legally'?
Just to put things in context ... are you saying none of the things I mentioned happen? As I said numerous times, it's not about who is right, it's about staying safe ... people make mistakes ... especially if they are impatient, or stressed. When you are lying in hospital recovering from a collision with another vehicle, do you care whether or not you were entitled to ride legally two abreast? You will be entitled to compensation from their insurer, though you would need to survive the accident to make use of it.
Oh, and motorists do have accidents with tractors, ponies, stopped vehicles, etc. ... doesn't mean we should create situations that increase risk. Cyclists have a choice (ride single file), tractors don't.
The flipside is that riding two abreast forces motorists to overtake only if there's nothing coming, whereas riding single file can allow people to squeeze through dangerously when there isn't sufficient space to do it safely.
Which is the greater risk? Who knows - it's a guessing game and it varies constantly.
Anyone driving a motor vehicle round a bend in such a way as they cannot stop should they encounter something just beyond their vision, be it a car that has broken down, a pedestrian crossing or some cyclists, should be convicted of dangerous driving and have their licence taken away. It is morally tantamount to attempted murder, because they are driving without caring whether they kill someone or not.
Why not? All cars are two abreast (driver and front passenger) and no-one says they shouldn't be on the roads. Going two-abreast is the natural way for most people to cycle: it is a social activity.
The cyclists that insist on riding 2 abreast on narrow lanes whilst having a nice chat and won't just move to let a single car passed piss me right off. It's selfish and unsafe.
When I'm out riding I make a point of moving from riding 2 abreast as soon as I'm aware of a car behind. I also make a point of thanking patient driver, just a raise of the hand and a nod goes a very long way !
I cycle around Lichfield, Tamworth and Derbyshire areas and it shocks me how many dickhead cyclists there are with no regard for drivers or their fellow cyclists. Most cyclists acknowledge each other with a hand, nod or a simple "morning mate" but more and more are just plain fecking ignorant to any kind of extended pleasantry ! These guys don't love cycling, no. These are SERIOUS CYCLISTS..............
You know who you are guys. Assos, Pinarello, no helmet, designer glasses, on your way out when I've already done my morning miles !
Knobbers................
Maybe they're ignoring you because they're concerned you might take issue with their bike/ kit/ 'designer glasses'.
An interesting article in the new Cyclist magazine about the Tour of Britain technical manager Andy Hawes, who said the roads that are favourites of sunday club riders are not necessarily suitable for a stage of the tour of britain.
I think the same thing can apply here. It can be completely different when a road is taken over by 1000+ cyclists, who are ultimately racing (even though they shouldn't!)
I agree with the above there are idiots in very walk of life, idiot car drivers and idiot cyclists (I live in London and see plenty of both!)
Pages