- 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
Cheltenham New Flyer - tori and skardy 2UK government sets out to kill off the cycling chain gang
The UK government appears set on killing off the chain gang – that’s one takeaway from yesterday’s launch of a consultation on proposed changes to the Highway Code.
There’s a lot to unpack from the consultation – just the summary of the planned amendments runs to a couple of dozen pages – which opened on the same day as Number 10 set out how it plans to revolutionise cycling in England.
And, sure, there were certainly some more headline-grabbing aspects of the consultation for the mainstream media to chew over, including setting out a hierarchy of road users to protect the most vulnerable.
It also for the first time sets out actual recommended passing distances because, let’s face it, we all know exactly what 2 metres looks like after the past four months [you forgot the eyeroll emoji – Ed].
But there, in black and white, are the words that should give rise to concern to anyone who likes going for a ride with cycling mates, or fellow club members, perhaps to a café and having a bit of a chat along the way.
The current wording of Rule 66 of the Highway Code says among other things that while cycling, “You should … never ride more than two abreast, and ride in single file on narrow or busy roads and when riding round bends.”
The proposed new wording, however, says that “You should … ride in single file when drivers wish to overtake and it is safe to let them do so. When riding in larger groups on narrow lanes, it is sometimes safer to ride two abreast.”
Now, it’s important to note the use of the word “should” rather than “must” which appears in many other places in the Highway Code; the former is advisory, the latter is the law (and footnotes peppered throughout highlight the relevant legislation.
Nevertheless, whether it’s advice or an instruction backed by the force of the law, the government is effectively telling cyclists not to ride two abreast on busy roads.
And that spells bad news for those who enjoy riding in chain gangs – although we suppose you could just confine your rides to country lanes where you apparently have the government’s blessing on safety grounds.
Which raises a serious point – and a potentially deathly serious one at that, if you’ll forgive the expression.
> Monday moaning: Why do cyclists ride two abreast?
It is often safer for cyclists in a group to ride two abreast, irrespective of the kind of road, because it makes it easier and quicker for motorists to overtake them – something highlighted in a video from cycling journalist and author Carlton Reid in a 2015 film featuring Chris Boardman and senior driving driving instructor Blaine Walsh.
In fact, so impressed was the government with the video, called SPACE, that it planned to distribute an edited version to all driving instructors throughout the country – as well as turning a shorter version of it into a public information film.
> Government to ensure all driving instructors watch Chris Boardman SPACE for cycling film (+ video)
You can find the Department for Transport’s full consultation document on the proposed changes to the Highway Code here.
Launched yesterday, the consultation runs until midnight on 27 October 2020.
Simon joined road.cc as news editor in 2009 and is now the site’s community editor, acting as a link between the team producing the content and our readers. A law and languages graduate, published translator and former retail analyst, he has reported on issues as diverse as cycling-related court cases, anti-doping investigations, the latest developments in the bike industry and the sport’s biggest races. Now back in London full-time after 15 years living in Oxford and Cambridge, he loves cycling along the Thames but misses having his former riding buddy, Elodie the miniature schnauzer, in the basket in front of him.
Latest Comments
- hawkinspeter 26 min 12 sec ago
Wouldn't that just provide an incentive for fuel companies to not lower prices in the UK?...
- Car Delenda Est 30 min 52 sec ago
I'll always remember where I was when the twin towers were involved in an air traffic accident..
- Jogle 38 min 9 sec ago
Truck shields mobility scooter driver on motorway https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cdrdrkzdprro
- IanGlasgow 52 min 34 sec ago
CHPT3 is in receivership. Their website replaced by this notice. https://chpt3.com/
- froze 1 hour 4 min ago
Black Friday negatively impacts their business? LMAO!...
- Paul J 1 hour 21 min ago
So Froome basically chickened out on actually trying against Contador?...
- wtjs 1 hour 23 min ago
Local papers never reply and are only there for advertising. Lancashire Constbulary is only too keen to state firmly that VED evasion is nothing to...
- Supervet 1 hour 38 min ago
I have started holding my breath for 5 x 30 seconds, that increases EPO, rebreathers not required....
- eburtthebike 1 hour 41 min ago
Not sure how popular. He just about hung on to his mayoral seat in the recent elections, frequently touted as a tory success.
- chrisonabike 2 hours 51 min ago
Generally agree but with caveat - we have over time achieved "road safety" at the expense of vulnerable road users (eg. their convenience, or...
Add new comment
48 comments
https://www.bournemouthecho.co.uk/news/18620714.illegally-parked-cars-ca... so, the bus drivers became stuck behind two abreast cyclists? right o , gotcha.
These changes have been declared as improving safety for people cycling.
This is trying to make things easier for cars to pass. There is only one small change for those driving cars. Maybe 10 more rules for people on bikes. Trojan horse.
It's amazing what a provocative, click-bait headline can do. 91 comments - make that 92.
The argument is that riding two abreast limits the opportnities for safe overtaking, leading to motorists' frustration and enmity. I'll try to put some numbers to it.
I'll assume a cyclist is 60cm wide and needs 60cm clearance to the kerb or between riders two abreast. A car is 1.8m wide and needs the same 60cm kerbside clearance, and 1m clearance between oncoming cars. Overtaking clearance to a cyclist is 1.5m below 30mph, 2.0m from 30mph and above.
A single carriageway two-lane road is between 5.5m and 7.3m wide.
It becomes apparent that a car is never able to safely overtake a bicycle when there is oncoming traffic - the other lane has to be clear to allow safe overtaking, even for a single cyclist, even for the widest carriageway. To assume otherwise would require a 30mph road wider than a two-lane motorway.
So looking at the minimum width of carriageway required to safely overtake, with no oncoming cars, there are four cases:
Single Cyclist
<30mph = 5.1m
>30mph = 5.6m
Two Abreast
<30mph = 6.3m
>30mph = 6.8m
So cyclists should go single file on urban roads (30mph limit) below 6.3m width and fast roads below 6.8m width. Otherwise they are preventing cars safely overtaking even when there are no oncoming vehicles. Whereas on roads below 5.1m/5.6m cyclists should take the entire lane in the hope of preventing vehicles overtaking, and move over where there is an overtaking place (eg a layby etc).
None of this seems remotely practical. It would be far better if the rule was clear and simple - on two lane carriageways, motorists overtaking cyclists MUST only do so by moving fully into the other lane. The cyclists can then decide for themselves what level of comfort they require between themselves and the lane marker, cycling singly or two abreast as they please. And motorists will soon come to prefer that cyclists do go two abreast.
Narrow single lane rural roads, paradoxically, usually have a 60mph limit. These are often 5.5m wide or less, so not wide enough to either pass or overtake a even single cyclist. Again, the cyclists should take the lane (two abreast), and move over at a passing place, exactly as cars do.
All in, I do wonder at the credibility the government attaches to the 1.5/2.0m overtaking clearances - the implication is that cars only overtake a cyclist when the other lane is clear, and stop grumbling about cyclist two-abreast. Without a massive education programme that is simply not going to happen.
One important point. An average car is 1.8m wide by manufacturers standard measurements. These DON'T include wing mirrors.
As a result your minimum widths are potentially off by 15-40cm depending on what allowances you make for wing mirrors size and overlap... (For example it may be possible for the wing mirror to overhang the opposite side of the road as their is nothing for it to hit...)
Without a massive education programme that is simply not going to happen.
A massive education programme for the police will be necessary first!
what a mess this HC all is
Can you imagine if airspace were controlled by such a contorted code. Hope the same team is not revising that next
Oh it is. And not just airspace but what you can fly, in what light and weather, how much weight you can take, even the technology you are allowed to use - magneto ignition has endured simply due to certification.
But the rules of the air have for decades had the hierarchy of type that we need. Powered aircraft must give way to gliders who must give way to balloons, for example.
We are not going to get perfection, but we can get improvement and hopefully something based on principles rather than lots of individual cases which can't cover everything. Though I must say the convoluted rules for covid 19 don't give me much hope.
So single file in a line of half a dozen or more riders riding a foot or two from the centre line will be fine then? Good to know drivers will all now show respect when I'm riding in the middle of the lane with others then...
Would a chaingang of say 12 cyclists be classed as one vehicle? If so then
Rule 164
Large vehicles. Overtaking these is more difficult.
Make sure that you have enough room to complete your overtaking manoeuvre before committing yourself. It takes longer to pass a large vehicle. If in doubt do not overtake
https://www.highwaycodeuk.co.uk/using-the-road-overtaking.html#:~:text=O....
No.
Slightly confused by this article - as is pointed out, the Highway Code currently says cyclists should ride in single file on busy roads.
The proposed revised wording is therefore an improvement. However, as I have pointed out before (and indeed as others have pointed out in the comments) I will be responding to the consultation to suggest that the revised wording is more along the lines of:
Cyclists should ride in single file if doing so would help drivers overtake safely. On many roads, it is safer to cycle two abreast.
I don't know if the current proposal is trying to say that but is poorly worded, or if they actually mean it how it is.
How about:
Where opportunities for traffic behind to safely pass a cyclist in the centre of the lane may be limited, cyclists should consider riding single file to the left when it is safe and convenient to do so. When riding in groups, it may be safer, and more convenient for those passing, to ride two abreast.
?
I think putting the word 'consider' in there emphasises that it's a matter of considerate road use, rather than a matter of obligation, and the 'safe and convenient' bit underlines that it's the cyclist's choice when is an appropriate time to move over (bearing in mind that it's not just about the safety of the pass, but also the safety of the manouvre itself, and of riding in that part of the road (which might be full of potholes, for example).
Surely "...and it is safe to let them do so" is the massive caveat that leaves the decision up to cyclists.
Largely a non-story. The dogmatic on both sides will continue to do what they always have, those of us who ride/drive with a bit of common sense will continue to do so.
So they've revised a code where:
1. we can't fathom its actual meaning - due to its twists and turns and vagueness - let alone can we agree whether it is just.
2. the people who most need to read and adhere to it won't bother.
3. it can be taken either way depending on one's point of view
4. sensible people will carry on just sensibly figuring things out for themselves
I hope they didn't spend a lot of time on this then
Must. Should . . . . . Does it make any difference?
Have a little guess at which of the two is a legal requirement
BIG difference
Lot's of debate on this in the comments but no one seems to acknowledge that very few drivers follow the highway code fully. I doubt that the arseholes who I'm scared of have ever read it.
If you want real change then try building proper infrasturcture, enforcing the law and dilligently prosecuting those who kill and maim us.
Which is why I think they should enforce a 10 year limit on licenses and every 10 years drivers have to pass the written and practical tests. That way it is keeping drivers up to date on the Highway Code and also on their driving standards.
I passed mine with a practical and 5 questions in the car park 25 years ago. My late dad learnt on farm equipment and army lorries and I assume some extra test to get a license and held it for 70 years without any updates needed. I don't see why most other driving needs regular renewals but car and vans don't.
How can we possibly know whether a driver wishes to overtake? Are we suddenly all telepaths?
They all do. Even when you are riding at the speed limit.
Its a proposed change, and clearly the intent is to foster cooperation among road users and to leave it to your own judgement of what is safe. Keep in mind that as such it's not a black and white rule, and is balanced by other proposed changes to the Highway Code such as the heirarchy of road users.
I'll add to that, even when i'm cycling above the speed limit they still want to overtake! (MGIF)
put it in a document or law all you want, if i want to ride next to someone and chat to them i will do. It makes no difference to anyone behind wishing to overtake, as long as I'm not across the middle of the road then they wont have an issue with me, because they'll be in the other lane anyway. If they want me single file that only means they will be overtaking when oncoming traffic is still ''oncoming'' meaning if i swerve, or have to go round a pothole, there's no room for me to do so, due to the huge size of most cars now. The other lane is for overtaking, the lane I am cycling in is for me to cycle on, not for you to push me out the way in. If they do make it law, then the next time i come up behind a driver stuck in a traffic queue and with nobody in the seat beside them, i will tell them they need to get single file, because i wish to overtake. If they don't immediately cut their car in half and move into single file so i can pass, i shall abuse them for breaking the law.
I didn't even realise that groups of cyclists rode two abreast.
Surely there is one group of cyclists riding single file positioned towards the left of the lane, and there is another group of cyclists in single file wishing to overtake them using the right side of the lane, but not making much headway due to their similar top speed
took me a second to get that but yes, that could be argued back very easily, how would you even prove the riders were together and not simply trying to overtake a different group of riders?
On any road with lanes wider than 2m, it's perfectly possible to safely pass (at 30mph) whilst not being completely in the other lane. Most roads with bus routes are at least 6m carriageways, giving 3m per lane, meaning there's room to safely straddle the lanes and pass a solo cyclist into the path of another vehicle - but not to pass two abreast.
"it makes no difference to anyone behind" is the kind of unhelpful attitude that just winds everyone up.
You're assuming that the cyclist isn't riding anywhere near the middle of the lane then? As would be their right
Of course I am! Are you being deliberately obtuse?
The highway code here is about to be changed with guidance that passing distance should be 1.5m and the cyclist should be 0.5m from the kerb. How on earth is it possible to manitain these distances without crossing completely into the other lane when the lanes are 2m wide?
As to stradding the line depsite the presence of oncoming traffic; in my experience this leads to the terrifying horn blast when cyclist and both cars are all aligned. The load horn blast at close proximity that suggests a car may suddenly deviate course towards me, or hit me from behind.
The cyclist should be 0.5m from the kerb, the car should be 1.5m from the cyclist. a car is about 1.9m wide, as is the other car. Assume the cars are also 0.5m from each other, and the furtherst car is 0.5m from the kerb. That needs a minimum total width of 6.8m, assuming the driver coming the other way is accomodating the pass, which they may not be.
This also assumes the 0.5m and 1.5m are taken to the bike wheel and not to the shoulders or handlerbars of the cylist (i.e the cylist has no width)
In reality the oncoming car is likely to be more than 0.5m from the kerb, and neither driver will be comfortable passing within 0.5m of an oncoming vehicle at a closing speed of 60mph plus
in fact the following study defines lane widths of <3.1m as tight https://www.cycleways.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2014/09/Influence-of-roa... lanes >3.75m as spacious and a range between as critical.
I would suggest that on roads narrower than 4m cyclists should ride single file, and on roads with lanes wider than 3.5m also. But on roads in between the overtaker should be using the other lane, and it should be free of traffic, meaning 2 abreast does not prevent a safe overtake, but we know that single file encourages the dangerous squeeze through overtake, which you appear to be advocating.
Pages