'Annoyance tax' suggested as anti-cyclist bingo + two abreast rants roll on; Canyon unveils Grizl gravel bikes with new RockShox suspension; Ned Boulting talks bike paths; Ever been stuck behind a cyclist for an hour?; Zwift with G + more on the live blog

If the road is that narrow then it almost certainly isn't safe to overtake a single cyclist, so single file or 2 abreast makes no difference except that doubling up definitely makes it clear to a following motorist that there is not enough space and not to take a chance. If the cyclists feel it is safe to do so and from their better vantage position, they may single out and wave a vehicle past. Being prepared for the closeness of the vehicle makes the pass safer for everyone.

Most cyclists are decent human beings and have no wish to hold up traffic just for fun. Unfortunately on narrow singletrack roads, if you bring a vehicle that uses all the road space then you have to accept that sometimes you are going to have to wait to get past slower traffic. Then again, if you are in a rush then you are probably on the wrong type of road or may have been issued with emergency blue lights and sirens, the use of which will have those pesky cyclists looking for the nearest place to pull over and stop while you pass.

Thanks for your answer. I'm not sure if I've explained the question clearly, as on a single carriageway road (one lane in each direction), there's enough room to overtake cyclists riding single file, but there wouldn't be room to overtake cyclists riding two abreast. Surely it'd be impossible to overtake cyclists riding two abreast whilst leaving the recommended distance on anything other than roads with more than 2 lanes?

If there's enough room to overtake another car safely, then there's enough room to overtake two cyclists riding side-by-side, who will take up less space than a typical car.

I don't think I've ever seen a car overtake another car and leave anything more than two or three feet of space between it and the other car!

I have seen 3.65m quoted as an example lane width. A VW Golf for example is just over 2m wide. Two Golfs passing one another would therefore have over 1.5m between them, even if each of them was travelling in the middle of their lane. Obviously there are plenty of variables, but I would suggest on a great many single carriageway roads it's therefore perfectly possible to pass either another car or cyclists riding two abreast while still giving 1.5m passing distance.     

1.5m is <5ft, so, given that the offside cyclist would typically be >1 ft further towards the centre of the lane than the offside of a car, the same position that would give a car 3 ft of clearance would likely give the cyclist 1.5m.

In any case, though, I think you're underestimating the typical clearance given when passing another car.

Nagai74 wrote:

I don't think I've ever seen a car overtake another car and leave anything more than two or three feet of space between it and the other car!

if you were driving and a car overtook you at 2 feet you would be shocked. Thats probably closer than cars would be in a car park. Do you really think overtaking cars are as close to each other as parked cars?

If you overtake other cars as close as that you should surrender your licence driving is not for you. No allowance for the overtaking car to deviate for any reason

If you are using the picture linked to the JV article above then the outside cyclist of the staggered pairs is approx 2/3 of the way into the marked lane. This is exactly where a motorcyclist would be and where the driver of a standard RHD car would be. The positioning of the group is textbook. A passing car has an entire lane to use and because the cyclists are bunched together the total time on "wrong side of the road" is commensurately shorter.

There seems to be an issue for some less confident drivers in thinking that moving entirely to the "wrong side" of the road for a shorter period of time is somehow more risky than straddling the centre line for a longer period of time.

Nagai74 wrote:

If cyclists are riding two (or more) abreast on a single carriageway road, how can that be making it easier for a motor vehicle to overtake than if they were riding single file? Surely it'd be impossible for the driver to give the recommended 1.5 metres between vehicle and the nearest bicycle?

I believe that the minimum passing distance does not apply if the motor vehicle is completely in the opposite lane, something I discovered from the Met when I complained about a lorry passing me unnecessarily close when I was in a bike lane (paint only): their interpretation, at least, was that as long as vehicles are in separate lanes and the overtaking vehicle doesn't cross the dividing line then passing distances don't apply.

Nagai74 wrote:

If cyclists are riding two (or more) abreast on a single carriageway road, how can that be making it easier for a motor vehicle to overtake than if they were riding single file? Surely it'd be impossible for the driver to give the recommended 1.5 metres between vehicle and the nearest bicycle?

with the first cyclist 1m from the edge, the second cyclist 1m from the first and the overtaking car 1.5m from the second, that comes to 3.5m, which is not unusually wide for a single carriageway lane. In reality the cyclists will be closer to the left edge and closer together, especially when they know a car is about to pass. Cars are typically less than 2m wide, giving plenty of room to be further into the other lane than the centre line anyway.

I don't know why this is in anyway contentious, I often see horses being ridden side by side and cars manage to pass them wide and slow. I don't know why this suddenly becomes difficult with cyclists who are lower and narrower than horses.

Sriracha wrote:

Not sure if this was mentioned here already: "TV presenter Storm Huntley has urged cyclists to wear helmets after she was knocked down by a car on Monday. The co-host of Channel 5's Jeremy Vine show tweeted an image of her damaged helmet saying she was thankful it wasn't her skull that was cracked.... ...Huntley said her partner had got rid of her bike after the incident, telling her: "No more cycling for you." (Yeah - I'd suggest getting rid of the motorist) https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/entertainment-arts-58156994

Yup, someone posted about it on fb, but I haven't seen the prog yet as it hasn't been put up, but the BBC coverage is its usual unquestioning promotion of helmets with no consideration that it might not have saved her life.  The usual focussing on the helmet being so beneficial, with very little examination of the cause of the collision, the driver.  I had thought the BBC was getting better, since they've had a couple of articles about cycling which were quite positive and no mention of helmets, but I see I'm mistaken.

Since it's C5 but reported by the BBC, that's two complaints I'll have to make.

I was most saddened by her OH's solution - stop cycling. The BBC failed to make anything about the hostile environment cyclists are routinely expected to contend with and the consequent chilling effect on the uptake of cycling more generally.

No comment on the infrastructure, no censure for the driver - just one of those things, and wear your helmet otherwise it would have been the cyclist at fault.

Storm Huntley: about a thousand people are killed falling downstairs every year in the UK - so always wear a crash helmet if you are going up or downstairs, that means indoors as well.

Nick T wrote:

At what point does a gravel bike with suspension forks become a hard tail mtb

Flat handlebars

Nick T wrote:

At what point does a gravel bike with suspension forks become a hard tail mtb

At the point where the manufacturers think that there's just enough difference to make people like me want one of each......

Nick T wrote:

At what point does a gravel bike with suspension forks become a hard tail mtb

about £3000

OnYerBike wrote:

I haven't listend to the full Radio 2 show and I don't intend to because I think it would make me despair... Shame Duncan Dollimore couldn't make it as generally he seems to hold his own pretty well in a debate, which is high praise as cycling "debates" tend to be a bit like playing chess with a pigeon.

what gives them the right to block the road when there is a 30mph limit? 

Nuts isn't I?. The original vid showed some cyclists studiously not blocking the road

I haven't (and won't ) listen to it. I do wish JV would not do these kind of shows, they are just designed to promote argument and the producers know this and it draws in lots of angry Daily Mail readers. I have in the past heard some of his similar cycling phone in shows whilst driving for work and end up just getting angry and stressed and switching off in annoyance.

It gets the listener numbers up though I suppose.

'cycling "debates" tend to be a bit like playing chess with a pigeon'

Or 'never argue with a stupid person - they'll drag you down to their level and then beat you with experience.' (Attributed to Mark Twain I think).

Captain Badger wrote:

some bigoted driver wrote:

"because sometimes you have to get to a place [...] you might be late. If somebody is dawdling along at 14mph and this country lane spans several miles, you could be adding another hour on to your journey." 

Please please get this formulated as a maths question at GCSE

 

Si Clist is riding his bike at an average speed of 14 mph down a country road.  Dick Head is in a car averaging 30 mph before he comes up behind Si and is stuck behind him for seven miles.  Dick writes on Twitter that he was delayed by Si for an hour.

a) How much longer does Dick's journey take as a result of being stuck behind Si?

b) What would Dick's average speed have to be in order for his statement of his delay to be true?

PRSboy wrote:

 

 

Si Clist is riding his bike at an average speed of 14 mph down a country road.  Dick Head is in a car averaging 30 mph before he comes up behind Si and is stuck behind him for seven miles.  Dick writes on Twitter that he was delayed by Si for an hour.

a) How much longer does Dick's journey take as a result of being stuck behind Si?

b) What would Dick's average speed have to be in order for his statement of his delay to be true?

That's a great start. We need to know the length of Dick's journey (quiet at the back!)

PRSboy wrote:

Si Clist is riding his bike at an average speed of 14 mph down a country road.  Dick Head is in a car averaging 30 mph before he comes up behind Si and is stuck behind him for seven miles.  Dick writes on Twitter that he was delayed by Si for an hour.

a) How much longer does Dick's journey take as a result of being stuck behind Si?

b) What would Dick's average speed have to be in order for his statement of his delay to be true?

The answer to (b) is simple: there is no possible speed that he could have been averaging that would allow Dick's journey to be delayed by an hour from being stuck behind a 14 MPH cyclist for seven miles (30 minutes.) Worst case, had he been previously travelling at the speed of light, he'd be delayed by 29:59.99996 seconds. Unfortunately, at anywhere close to the speed of light in an atmosphere, most cars turn into energy and exotic forms of matter, along with a lot of the other material in the surrounding few miles.