Cycling two abreast
View Full Version : Cycling two abreast
A few weeks ago I was cycling two abreast with a friend and was shouted at by a taxi driver who (I
assume) felt we were impeding his progress along the road. I was wondering if cycling in this was is
illegal / advisable ?
Any thoughts appreciated.
Neil
Neil Hardman wrote:
> A few weeks ago I was cycling two abreast with a friend and was shouted at by a taxi driver who (I
> assume) felt we were impeding his progress along the road. I was wondering if cycling in this was
> is illegal / advisable ?
Highway Code rule 51: "You should ... not ride more than two abreast."
There is a good argument for saying that cycling two abreast makes it easier for motorists to get
past you, as if there is room to safely pull around a single cyclist then there is also room to
safely pull around two cyclists riding abreast. Two cyclists abreast take up less length of road
than two cyclists in single file, so the motorist doesn't have to spend as long on the wrong side of
the road while overtaking.
--
Danny Colyer (remove safety to reply) ( http://www.juggler.net/danny ) Recumbent cycle page:
http://www.speedy5.freeserve.co.uk/recumbents/ "He who dares not offend cannot be honest." -
Thomas Paine
"Danny Colyer" <danny@jugglersafety.net> wrote in message news:bcg4p1$o46$2@news7.svr.pol.co.uk...
> Neil Hardman wrote:
> > A few weeks ago I was cycling two abreast with a friend and was shouted at by a taxi driver who
> > (I assume) felt we were impeding his progress along the road. I was wondering if cycling in this
> > was is illegal / advisable ?
>
> Highway Code rule 51: "You should ... not ride more than two abreast."
>
> There is a good argument for saying that cycling two abreast makes it easier for motorists to get
> past you, as if there is room to safely pull around a single cyclist then there is also room to
> safely pull around two cyclists riding abreast. Two cyclists abreast take up less length of road
> than two cyclists in single file, so the motorist doesn't have to spend as long on the wrong side
> of the road while overtaking.
>
> --
> Danny Colyer (remove safety to reply) ( http://www.juggler.net/danny ) Recumbent cycle page:
> http://www.speedy5.freeserve.co.uk/recumbents/ "He who dares not offend cannot be honest." -
> Thomas Paine
>
....and ofcourse, the day you start taking anything said by a taxi driver seriously....... ;-) Dave.
In article <bcg4p1$o46$2@news7.svr.pol.co.uk>, "Danny Colyer" <danny@jugglersafety.net> wrote:
>There is a good argument for saying that cycling two abreast makes it easier for motorists to get
>past you, as if there is room to safely pull around a single cyclist then there is also room to
>safely pull around two cyclists riding abreast.
Bristol must be suffering from some mutant plague of drivers who leave gaps bigger than half a metre
as they thunder past..... could you get them to interbreed with some of ours? :-/
Richard
--
Richard Edgar Robinson College All Opinions My Own etc.
In Ireland the code used to say..
Cyclist should not cycle 2 abreast in built-up areas and should not cycle more than 2 abreast
outside of those.
It now says should not cycle 2 abreast in heavy traffic and so on.
We get occasional ignorant drivers who stop and abuse us and misquote the ROR. I usually bet them
their car vs. its value as to what it says. I've not been taken on yet. I acually carry a photocopy
of the relevant page in one of my cycling bags!
On Sat, 14 Jun 2003 22:21:57 +0100, "Neil Hardman" <neil@fiveelms.co.uk> wrote:
>A few weeks ago I was cycling two abreast with a friend and was shouted at by a taxi driver who (I
>assume) felt we were impeding his progress along the road. I was wondering if cycling in this was
>is illegal / advisable ?
>
>Any thoughts appreciated.
>
Well, as a cyclist I never do it, and as a car driver it really pisses me off.
I can't see the logic of holding up traffic other than to inflame with more petrol.
Perfectly legal though.
Garry
On Sat, 14 Jun 2003 22:21:57 +0100 someone who may be "Neil Hardman" <neil@fiveelms.co.uk>
wrote this:-
>A few weeks ago I was cycling two abreast with a friend and was shouted at by a taxi driver who (I
>assume) felt we were impeding his progress along the road. I was wondering if cycling in this was
>is illegal / advisable ?
You have a legal right to proceed along the road. If someone wants to overtake then they are (in
most circumstances) free to do so, provided that they can do so safely. The Highway Code is
available on line for you to study, which is a reasonable guide to the law as well as a source of
advice, most of which is useful.
He was only picking on you because far too many taxi drivers are bad drivers who think that everyone
else should be cleared out of their way. Were you driving or steering a traction engine he would
probably not have had a go at you, because bullies only pick on those they think they can bully.
--
David Hansen, Edinburgh | PGP email preferred-key number F566DA0E I will always explain revoked
keys, unless the UK government prevents me using the RIP Act 2000.
On Sun, 15 Jun 2003 09:10:28 +0100 someone who may be Garry Broad <somebloke@internet.com>
wrote this:-
>>A few weeks ago I was cycling two abreast with a friend
>
>Well, as a cyclist I never do it, and as a car driver it really pisses me off.
Why?
>I can't see the logic of holding up traffic other than to inflame with more petrol.
Does cycling "hold up" other traffic more than cycling in single file?
--
David Hansen, Edinburgh | PGP email preferred-key number F566DA0E I will always explain revoked
keys, unless the UK government prevents me using the RIP Act 2000.
Garry Broad <somebloke@internet.com> writed in news:v4aoevotiq5nopv5l0e0m6ijnklguk25i9@4ax.com:
> On Sat, 14 Jun 2003 22:21:57 +0100, "Neil Hardman" <neil@fiveelms.co.uk> wrote:
>
>>A few weeks ago I was cycling two abreast with a friend and was shouted at by a taxi driver who (I
>>assume) felt we were impeding his progress along the road. I was wondering if cycling in this was
>>is illegal / advisable ?
>>
>>Any thoughts appreciated.
>>
>
> Well, as a cyclist I never do it, and as a car driver it really pisses me off.
>
> I can't see the logic of holding up traffic other than to inflame with more petrol.
>
> Perfectly legal though.
>
> Garry
Cyclists are traffic!
Mike Gayler wrote:
> Garry Broad <somebloke@internet.com> writed in news:v4aoevotiq5nopv5l0e0m6ijnklguk25i9@4ax.com:
>>Well, as a cyclist I never do it, and as a car driver it really pisses me off.
>>
>>I can't see the logic of holding up traffic other than to inflame with more petrol.
>>
>>Perfectly legal though.
Agreed on all counts.
> Cyclists are traffic!
That's nice to know. Are you trying to claim that cyclists two abreast never hold you up when you're
cycling? Cos it sure as hell holds me up when I'm cycling up behind them.
w
"David Hansen" <SENDdavidNOhSPAM@spidacom.co.uk> wrote in message
news:ignoevgm2g543vn6dpu1lp6tbdktob5c3u@4ax.com...
> On Sun, 15 Jun 2003 09:10:28 +0100 someone who may be Garry Broad <somebloke@internet.com>
> wrote this:-
>
> >>A few weeks ago I was cycling two abreast with a friend
> >
> >Well, as a cyclist I never do it, and as a car driver it really pisses me off.
>
> Why?
>
> >I can't see the logic of holding up traffic other than to inflame with more petrol.
>
> Does cycling "hold up" other traffic more than cycling in single file?
>
Or more than "other traffic"?
On Sun, 15 Jun 2003 13:00:52 +0100, David Hansen <SENDdavidNOhSPAM@spidacom.co.uk> wrote:
>On Sun, 15 Jun 2003 09:10:28 +0100 someone who may be Garry Broad <somebloke@internet.com>
>wrote this:-
>
>>>A few weeks ago I was cycling two abreast with a friend
>>
>>Well, as a cyclist I never do it, and as a car driver it really pisses me off.
>
>Why?
Why?
Well, (putting cager hat on) I guess, to begin with, it's an instictive reaction, "why are those two
taking up half the road, when if they were in single file I could pass more easily. I'm now stuck
behind these two at ***mph and I want to pass!". Hands up, this is it! Point is, in heavy traffic in
the oppostite direction, it's virtually impossible to pass without creating a well dodgy situation,
taking a real hazadous risk...but single file often presents no problem....except on the most narrow
of roads. Ease up a bit, check your width, see what's ahead, overtake...no worries. Two a breast?
For me, whole different ball game. So we share the road. I have this big nasty heap of metal that
can do a ton, and 'they' have these bikes that go much slower. Pubs are for 'gossiping' anyway :-)
And if you want my real honest opinion, I think some people do it to 'p*** off motorists'.....but
I'm not going there :-)
there....must be plenty here to come back at !
garry
>>I can't see the logic of holding up traffic other than to inflame with more petrol.
>
>Does cycling "hold up" other traffic more than cycling in single file?
On Sun, 15 Jun 2003 21:20:59 +0100, Garry Broad <somebloke@internet.com> wrote:
>Point is, in heavy traffic in the oppostite direction, it's virtually impossible to pass without
>creating a well dodgy situation, taking a real hazadous risk...but single file often presents no
>problem....except on the most narrow of roads.
As long as your definition of "no problem" only includes no problem to you, of course. It is
perfectly possibly to overtake a lone cyclist on a busy road with traffic coming the other way
without endangering anybody's life but the cyclist's, and that's what most drivers choose to do, but
in the main if it's not safe to overtake two bikes abreast it's not safe to overtake at all unless
the road is unusually wide. And most riders don't ride two-abreast on wide urban roads.
The alternative, waiting a moment, doesn't seem to be in the average cager's bag of tricks though.
Guy
===
** WARNING ** This posting may contain traces of irony. http://www.chapmancentral.com (http://www.chapmancentral.com/) Advance
notice: ADSL service in process of transfer to a new ISP. Obviously there will be a week of downtime
between the engineer removing the BT service and the same engineer connecting the same equipment on
the same line in the same exchange and billing it to the new ISP.
I wasn't trying to piss anyone off.. It was a quiet evening ride with not much traffic about. I
appreciate that it might piss people off but then again I think other road users should be a little
more laid back about going fast everywhere. Slowing down might be good for them :-)
Neil
"Garry Broad" <somebloke@internet.com> wrote in message
news:4bkpev0i5tm0pifuns1i0guimi8ai4hq8h@4ax.com...
> On Sun, 15 Jun 2003 13:00:52 +0100, David Hansen <SENDdavidNOhSPAM@spidacom.co.uk> wrote:
>
> >On Sun, 15 Jun 2003 09:10:28 +0100 someone who may be Garry Broad <somebloke@internet.com>
> >wrote this:-
> >
> >>>A few weeks ago I was cycling two abreast with a friend
> >>
> >>Well, as a cyclist I never do it, and as a car driver it really pisses me off.
> >
> >Why?
>
> Why?
>
> Well, (putting cager hat on) I guess, to begin with, it's an instictive reaction, "why are those
> two taking up half the road, when if they were in single file I could pass more easily. I'm now
> stuck behind these two at ***mph and I want to pass!". Hands up, this is it! Point is, in heavy
> traffic in the oppostite direction, it's virtually impossible to pass without creating a well
> dodgy situation, taking a real hazadous risk...but single file often presents no problem....except
> on the most narrow of roads. Ease up a bit, check your width, see what's ahead, overtake...no
> worries. Two a breast? For me, whole different ball game. So we share the road. I have this big
> nasty heap of metal that can do a ton, and 'they' have these bikes that go much slower. Pubs are
> for 'gossiping' anyway :-) And if you want my real honest opinion, I think some people do it to
> 'p*** off motorists'.....but I'm not going there :-)
>
> there....must be plenty here to come back at !
>
> garry
>
>
> >>I can't see the logic of holding up traffic other than to inflame with more petrol.
> >
> >Does cycling "hold up" other traffic more than cycling in single file?
Just zis Guy, you know? wrote:
> On Sun, 15 Jun 2003 21:20:59 +0100, Garry Broad <somebloke@internet.com> wrote:
>
>>Point is, in heavy traffic in the oppostite direction, it's virtually impossible to pass without
>>creating a well dodgy situation, taking a real hazadous risk...but single file often presents no
>>problem....except on the most narrow of roads.
>
> As long as your definition of "no problem" only includes no problem to you, of course. It is
> perfectly possibly to overtake a lone cyclist on a busy road with traffic coming the other way
> without endangering anybody's life but the cyclist's, and that's what most drivers choose
_Most_ drivers choose to endanger the life of the cyclist? I know you're extremely anti-car, but
that's stretching it a bit, even for you, Guy.
> to do, but in the main if it's not safe to overtake two bikes abreast it's not safe to overtake at
> all unless the road is unusually wide. And most riders don't ride two-abreast on wide urban roads.
That's utter rubbish, unless you're saying that the overtaking vehicle (be it car or bike) should
give less space than they would overtaking a single bike. 2X+Y is greater than X+Y (X is bike width,
Y is overtaking space), unless the bike is of zero width, which is impossible.
> The alternative, waiting a moment, doesn't seem to be in the average cager's bag of tricks though.
The concept of courtesy to other road users sadly seems to be lacking from all classes of vehicle
user, with a far too large percentage of each thinking that _they_ have the 'right' to the
roadspace.
w
On Sun, 15 Jun 2003 22:10:21 +0100, William Turner <news@v8rush.co.uk> wrote:
>
> That's utter rubbish, unless you're saying that the overtaking vehicle (be it car or bike) should
> give less space than they would overtaking a single bike. 2X+Y is greater than X+Y (X is bike
> width, Y is overtaking space), unless the bike is of zero width, which is impossible.
>
No, just that the motorist can give (1e-15)X+Y when overtaking one cyclist which means s/he doesn't
have to pass any closer to the oncomming traffic than if there was no cyclist. As soon as they are
two abreast the _minimum_ distance they can give is (1+1e-15)X+Y which means they have to wait for a
suitable gap and so 2X+Y makes absolutely no difference.
To a certain extent, when cycling alone you can make the X by not riding too close to the kerb but
some drivers will _deliberately_ swerve in at you as they overtake because X+Y doesn't give them
room with the oncomming traffic and they can't bear to wait. Far better to risk killing someone else
so that they can get to the back of the queue ahead a fraction of a second later.
Tim.
--
God said, "div D = rho, div B = 0, curl E = - @B/@t, curl H = J + @D/@t," and there was light.
http://tjw.hn.org/ http://www.locofungus.btinternet.co.uk/
"William Turner" <news@v8rush.co.uk> wrote in message news:3EECE0BD.3070207@v8rush.co.uk...
> Just zis Guy, you know? wrote:
> > On Sun, 15 Jun 2003 21:20:59 +0100, Garry Broad <somebloke@internet.com> wrote:
>
> The concept of courtesy to other road users sadly seems to be lacking from all classes of vehicle
> user, with a far too large percentage of each thinking that _they_ have the 'right' to the
> roadspace.
>
> w
As cyclist & pedestrian & parent of small children & driver, I do have to say that it is careless
and lawbreaking cyclists who put me and mine at most risk most often.
I and my children have been very close to being ridden into by cyclists blithely ignoring red
traffic lights and even worse red lights at pelican crossings on more occasions than I care to
mention. That is deliberate and conscious law breaking putting other road users at risk. Ditto
cyclists travelling at speed (esp around corners) on the pavement.
As cyclist it is the stupid or ignorant actions of motorists that give me problems not (generally)
deliberate choice by them to break the law.
Now I guess that most on here would not dream of behaving like the cyclists I describe but please
let us not pretend that all cyclists are paragons of roadusing virtue.
pk
On Sun, 15 Jun 2003 22:10:21 +0100, William Turner <news@v8rush.co.uk> wrote:
> That's utter rubbish, unless you're saying that the overtaking vehicle (be it car or bike) should
> give less space than they would overtaking a single bike. 2X+Y is greater than X+Y (X is bike
> width, Y is overtaking space), unless the bike is of zero width, which is impossible.
No, but done properly, Y is very much greater than X, so in almost all circumstances, 2X+Y is not
significantly different to X+Y.
regards, Ian SMith
--
|\ /| no .sig
|o o|
|/ \|
Garry Broad wrote:
> On Sat, 14 Jun 2003 22:21:57 +0100, "Neil Hardman" <neil@fiveelms.co.uk> wrote:
>
> >A few weeks ago I was cycling two abreast with a friend and was shouted at by a taxi driver who
> >(I assume) felt we were impeding his progress along the road. I was wondering if cycling in this
> >was is illegal / advisable ?
> >
> >Any thoughts appreciated.
> >
>
> Well, as a cyclist I never do it, and as a car driver it really pisses me off.
>
> I can't see the logic of holding up traffic....
As as part of "traffic" I could get pretty annoyed most days when I get held up sole-occupancy car
drivers - usually often blocking the road at lights, junctions, roundabouts etc.
Why should they be allowed to transport around a vehicle at least twice as wide as they require and
thus causing delays to other road users?
John B
Paul Kelly wrote:
> "William Turner" <news@v8rush.co.uk> wrote in message news:3EECE0BD.3070207@v8rush.co.uk...
> > Just zis Guy, you know? wrote:
> > > On Sun, 15 Jun 2003 21:20:59 +0100, Garry Broad <somebloke@internet.com> wrote:
> >
> > The concept of courtesy to other road users sadly seems to be lacking from all classes of
> > vehicle user, with a far too large percentage of each thinking that _they_ have the 'right' to
> > the roadspace.
> >
> > w
>
> As cyclist & pedestrian & parent of small children & driver, I do have to say that it is careless
> and lawbreaking cyclists who put me and mine at most risk most often.
As a cyclist, pedestrian and parent the biggest threat to my children's safety is from the careless
inconsiderate selfish car driver - and often they are not even breaking the law - which says
something for the priorities given towards safety.
John B
Automatic Translations (Powered by
):
vBulletin, Copyright ©2000-2009, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Search Engine Friendly URLs by
vBSEO 3.3.0
