Cycling two abreast

[Richard Goodman]

"Paul Kelly" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>

> 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.
>

That's just silly or are you a troll?

> 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.
>

Where I live, red light jumping is practiced by the majority of cyclists. Pavement cycling is
practiced by a small minority. As a rider, driver, pedestrian and parent I can say that I have
never, ever, felt me or mine to be at risk of serious harm from any cyclist doing either of those
things. I get vexed by pavement cyclists, but have never felt seriously threatened.

> 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.
>

Most motorists do deliberately choose to break the law by speeding.

> 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.
>

Of course they aren't, but whatever you feel, most danger to you and yours will come from the
drivers of motor vehicles not cyclists.

Rich

 

[David Hansen]

On Sun, 15 Jun 2003 21:20:59 +0100 someone who may be Garry Broad <[email protected]>
wrote this:-

>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.

No worries for the motorist. The cyclist probably has a great deal of worries as some cretin passes
them far too closely.

--
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]

On Sun, 15 Jun 2003 21:43:10 +0100, "Just zis Guy, you know?" <[email protected]> wrote:

>On Sun, 15 Jun 2003 21:20:59 +0100, Garry Broad <[email protected]> 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.
>

In your opinion, what's the proportion of 'cagers' to all the 'other motorists out there'?

Believe me, as a cyclist, (and I am one), I've had those 'wing mirror brush strokes' many times, at
which I've yelled back out of a kind of fear and anger, "wtf, you are doing, you ***"'....but can I
honestly say this is everybody? Many motorists give me time. But these I conveniently forget. And
those that do, I have often, quite unconsciously sometimes, just lifted my hand in acknowledgement
that I've been recognized. It matters.

garry

 

[Garry Broad]

On Mon, 16 Jun 2003 00:34:22 +0100, David Hansen <[email protected]> wrote:

>On Sun, 15 Jun 2003 21:20:59 +0100 someone who may be Garry Broad <[email protected]>
>wrote this:-
>
>>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.
>
>No worries for the motorist. The cyclist probably has a great deal of worries as some cretin passes
>them far too closely.

oh boy.....what's the point

my intent here was to just give a bit of room.....that was all..

over and out

garry

 

[Peter Sheaf]

"Danny Colyer" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:<[email protected]>...
> 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."

I'm all for ensuring road users take the care to overtake safely, but looking closer at the Highway
Code online (as suggested elsewhere on this thread), rule 51 states:

You should:

-not ride more than two abreast -ride in single file on narrow or busy roads

with the second line being crucial. How to define "busy"? Given how densely populated the UK is,
almost any urban centre could come under this category. Thus one might well tell an irate fellow
road user that it is perfectly legal to cycle two abreast, only for he/she to retort that it is not
so on "busy" roads. Even if, given the low average speeds of traffic, it probably wouldn't make much
difference to the road user in question anyway, but that's another issue.

Regards,

Peter

 

[Peter Sheaf]

> Highway Code rule 51: "You should ... not ride more than two abreast."

Having done a little further research, according to the Department of Transport, "Two abreast is
often OK, but try not to hold up other traffic." Thus perhaps the interpretation of what constitutes
holding up other traffic is the cyclists' and given a reasonable speed, they could be argued not be
holding up traffic in urban areas at all. It's still all rather debateable though.

See

http://www.roads.dft.gov.uk/roadsafety/leaflets/cycle/index.htm

for the above quote, and

http://www.highwaycode.gov.uk

for the Highway Code.

Regards,

Peter

 

[Robert McDonald]

David Hansen <[email protected]> wrote in message
> >A few weeks ago I was cycling two abreast with a friend........

> You have a legal right to proceed along the road.

Of course you have.

Tell me this:

Have you EVER seen a motorist honk at, swerve deliberately at,intimidate , swear at , stop and
lecture a couple of Police persons on dirty great horses riding through the rush hour traffic at
about six mph 'cos they won't single up? EH?

No - I thought not!

Robert

 

[Dave Larrington]

Dave wrote:

> ....and ofcourse, the day you start taking anything said by a taxi driver seriously....... ;-)

It's the start of the slippery slope. First taxi drivers, then the "Daily Mail" and before you
know it...

Dave Larrington - http://www.legslarry.beerdrinkers.co.uk/
===========================================================
Editor - British Human Power Club Newsletter
http://www.bhpc.org.uk/
===========================================================

 

[Danny Colyer]

Peter Sheaf wrote:
> I'm all for ensuring road users take the care to overtake safely, but looking closer at the
> Highway Code online (as suggested elsewhere on this thread), rule 51 states:
>
> You should: -not ride more than two abreast -ride in single file on narrow or busy roads

I wondered how long it would take for someone to pick up on my selective quoting of the rule.

> How to define "busy"?

How indeed?

> Thus one might well tell an irate fellow road user that it is perfectly legal to cycle two
> abreast, only for he/she to retort that it is not so on "busy" roads.

But it is still perfectly legal, no matter how busy the road. The Highway Code is not a legal
document. Where it refers to the law, it states "You MUST" or "You MUST NOT". The advice to ride in
single file on narrow or busy roads is simply, like so much of the HC, advising road users to show
courtesy to other road users. There is no legal obligation to show that courtesy.

--
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

 

[Steve McGinty]

On Sat, 14 Jun 2003 22:21:57 +0100, "Neil Hardman" <[email protected]> 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.
>
>Neil
>
The mountain bike riding cops round here ride two abreast all the time* - end of arguement?

*sorry - apart from when they hit a hill - then the skinny one leaves the well padded one behind!

Regards! Stephen

 

[Jeremy Parker]

> You should: -not ride more than two abreast -ride in single file on narrow or busy roads

But on narrow roads the driver will not be able to overtake without going into the next lane. It
seems to me that one might just as well ride two abreast, since it won't make an essential
difference to what the driver must do.

On a wide road, or at least a road with a wide kerb lane, a car will be be able to share the lane
with one bike, but is unlikely to be able to share with two.

Odd people, the Highway Code authors. You should see their advice about roundabouts.

Jeremy Parker

 

[Martin]

"Neil Hardman" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:<[email protected]>...
> 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

I did a 600k around Suffolk at the weekend and it appears that they do not publish the HC in that
county: I got at least 5 "This isn't a F**ing cycle lane" or similar from overtaking motorists. I
wonder what can be done about it; most car drivers are now not only unaware of the possibility of
coming up on two abreast, but also usually driving too fast to safely pass.

 

[James Hodson]

On 18 Jun 2003 01:13:43 -0700, [email protected] (martin) wrote:

>"This isn't a F**ing cycle lane"
>

Too right, Martin. It's a 'kin road, innit?

James

--
http://homepage.ntlworld.com/c.butty/Dscf0632.jpg

 

[Marc]

Paul Kelly <[email protected]> wrote:

> 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.

No, they put you at some risk more often.

--
Marc Stickers,decals,membership,cards, T shirts, signs etc for clubs and associations of all types.
http://www.jaceeprint.demon.co.uk/

 

[Paul Kelly]

In news:1fwr4qr.411t3t6pdcxfN%[email protected], marc <[email protected]> typed:
> Paul Kelly <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> 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.
>
> No, they put you at some risk more often.

I stand corected "some risk"

pk

 

[Marc]

Paul Kelly <[email protected]> wrote:

> >> 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.
> >
> > No, they put you at some risk more often.
>
> I stand corected "some risk"

Now qauntify "some risk" more often and compare with, great risk , less often for cars. Are careless
and lawbreaking cyclists really in the same league of risk/danger?

--
Marc Stickers,decals,membership,cards, T shirts, signs etc for clubs and associations of all types.
http://www.jaceeprint.demon.co.uk/

 

[Paul Kelly]

In news:1fwr7js.ajm69t1b7nvt1N%[email protected], marc
<[email protected]> typed:
> Paul Kelly <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>>>> 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.
>>>
>>> No, they put you at some risk more often.
>>
>> I stand corrected "some risk"
>
> Now qauntify "some risk" more often and compare with, great risk , less often for cars. Are
> careless and lawbreaking cyclists really in the same league of risk/danger?

Copied from another post i sent this morning:

A couple of weeks ago I stepped out of my front gate onto the pavement (hedges block view from path)
a cyclist travelling at speed on the pavement brushed my chest with her shoulder. If it had been one
of my kids it could have been a very nasty accident.

Last week on a pelican in Wimbledon, I had to grab and pull back my daughter as we were crossing
when a cyclist ignored the red light and steamed through the crossing. I was live to the possibility
as it is something I observe regularly in Wimbledon.

As Steve Peake said here the other day "The idiots [on the mixed use path in Richmond Park: posted
speed limit 15mph] that pass kids at 20+ mph need a punch in the mouth."

In answer to your question: Yes they sometimes are.

pk

 

[Just Zis Guy]

"Paul Kelly" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...

> 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.

During the 3-year period 1998-2000 out of a total of 2,630 pedestrians killed on the roads, 185 were
killed by vehicles on footways. Of these 185, one was killed by a bicycle and the remaining 184 were
killed by motor vehicles.

So you are nearly 200 times more likely to be killed on the pavement by a motor vehicle than by
a bicycle.

You are nearly 3,000 times more likely to die as a result of some other road traffic incident, such
as a driver failing to yield right of way on a crossing.

But cyclists riding on pavements scare people, so they shouldn't do it, nor should councils
encourage them by painting pictures of bikes on some pavements at random.

--
Guy
===
I wonder if you wouldn't mind piecing out our imperfections with your thoughts; and while you're
about it perhaps you could think when we talk of bicycles, that you see them printing their proud
wheels i' the receiving earth; thanks awfully.

 

[Marc]

Paul Kelly <[email protected]> wrote:

> > Now qauntify "some risk" more often and compare with, great risk , less often for cars. Are
> > careless and lawbreaking cyclists really in the same league of risk/danger?
>
> Copied from another post i sent this morning:
>
> A couple of weeks ago I stepped out of my front gate onto the pavement (hedges block view from
> path) a cyclist travelling at speed on the pavement brushed my chest with her shoulder. If it had
> been one of my kids it could have been a very nasty accident.
>
> Last week on a pelican in Wimbledon, I had to grab and pull back my daughter as we were crossing
> when a cyclist ignored the red light and steamed through the crossing. I was live to the
> possibility as it is something I observe regularly in Wimbledon.
>
> As Steve Peake said here the other day "The idiots [on the mixed use path in Richmond Park: posted
> speed limit 15mph] that pass kids at 20+ mph need a punch in the mouth."
>
>
> In answer to your question: Yes they sometimes are.

In another thread you claim to have experience in risk management, I would suggest that your
comments above refute that.

Stepping out of your front gate ....

How would a non-accident have been nastier if it had been one of your children?

Pelican in Wimbledon....

Cylist indulging in illegal/ dangerous activity that could have caused an accident that would have
resulted in broken bones at worst. Compare this with the same scenario involving a car... almost
certain death

Richmond park....

Yet another, "Pulleeeasee think of the childruuunnn" thread, not even worth commenting on.

Of the two cases above.

Both were illegal, neither caused any injury , neither would have caused any deaths, neither would
have have had any difference if it had been an adulkt or child involved, all would have resulted in
death if a car had been involved. I find your statement (Yes they sometimes are) to be not proven.

--
Marc Stickers,decals,membership,cards, T shirts, signs etc for clubs and associations of all types.
http://www.jaceeprint.demon.co.uk/

 

[Dave Larrington]

marc wrote:

> Stepping out of your front gate ....
>
> How would a non-accident have been nastier if it had been one of your children?

Children are smaller and lighter. A cyclist might bounce off a big heavy object such as, for
example, a Mr Larrington, but cause a child to be propelled with some vigour towards the scenery or
ground. Although most children appear to be made of rubber, there is a very real possibilty that
they are not, and might incur serious injury or death as a result of an impact which you or I might
have shrugged off.

Dave Larrington - http://www.legslarry.beerdrinkers.co.uk/
===========================================================
Editor - British Human Power Club Newsletter
http://www.bhpc.org.uk/
===========================================================