- 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
- 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
- Hirsute 2 min 22 sec ago
You need to clean your drive chain as you are prematurely wearing all the parts - sprockets, chain, jockey rollers, chainrings....
- Hirsute 4 min 34 sec ago
They have no idea about bikes so claimed chains = professionalism = outside forces.
- chrisonabike 0 sec ago
Yes. Traffic (motor traffic) is not the lifeblood of the city....
- john_smith 6 min 46 sec ago
"So Ukraine are allowed to retaliate but not Israel" Neither of them is.
- EmmaES 25 min 19 sec ago
I'm having this same problem too. Subscribed last night but when I try to pick my team it tells me to subscribe. I know of several other people...
- brooksby 33 min 36 sec ago
Does anyone actually bother voting for their 'police & crime commissioner'? Isn't it just a vanity title with little actual power?
- HarrogateSpa 52 min 51 sec ago
The role of Active Travel England in this is interesting. Apparently they have approved the new proposals, and may even have steered the council in...
- David9694 3 hours 40 min ago
Car left hanging from road after crashing through railing in Looe...
- Bungle_52 3 hours 42 min ago
Not Scotland but this was dangerous driving. It's the only one I'm aware of where a cyclist wasn't killed. Even when cyclists are killed it's...
Add new comment
48 comments
Well, it's not. But lanes aren't 2m wide.
https://mocktheorytest.com/resources/how-wide-are-roads/
Excellent. So we're agreed that on some carriageways it's perfectly possible to safely overtake without completely crossing to the other lane whilst not having enough room for a cycle lane on that carriageway.
These would be single-lane roads in that case, and so it doesn't matter whether the cyclists are single file in the centre of the road or two abreast, since there's no room to pass in anything other than a 'city car'
I agree that, on the right roads, I'm not too bothered about being passed by a car straddling lanes. BUT, if you're straddling the lanes, that presupposes there's no oncoming [car] traffic. In which case, why not go the whole hog and move fully into the other lane? The problem with riding single file in a group is that allows / encourages drivers to squeeze past without even straddling.
Alexls can't add. 1.5m overtaking clearance + 0.5m cyclist's kerb clearance already adds up to 2m. So even without allowing any width at all for the actual cyclist, the overtaking car must already be fully over into the other lane at 2m lane width. Given the car itself is 1.8m wide...
Seriously, is it even worth arguing with this person?
Let's do the math:
a) Kerb to bike 60cm,
b) Bike width 60cm,
c) Car to bike clearance 1.5m,
d) Car width 1.8m,
e) Car to oncoming car clearance 1.0m,
f) Oncoming car width 1.8m
g) Oncoming car to kerb clearance 60cm;
Total 7.90m
Available carriageway width 6.00m
Deficit 1.90m
How's that going to work?
Probably 1.0m of the difference is going to come out of the 1.5m overtaking clearance, giving a 50cm close pass. That's assuming they skim the other 90cm out of the clearance to the oncoming car whilst squeezing the cyclist and the oncoming car both into the kerbs.
No surprises then - that's exactly what happens - it's pre-programmed by the assumption that the lane does not belong to the cyclist.
Adding comments here is fine... as long as you’ve commented on the consultation. Get on there and respond accordingly!
Is this just badly worded?
Maybe what is intended is that cyclists should go into single file if a driver cannot overtake the group due to the width of the road, but would be able to do so if they singled out.
As has been pointed out, overtaking a group riding two abreast is often easier than if they were in a line.
This definitely needs a rethink, hopefully British Cycling are on the case.
These sorts of things tend to be worded ambiguously when possible, it creates some legal wiggle room for an at-fault party to build a defence. What we need is some Dutch strict-liability law if we're to truly experience a cycling golden age, not this mumbo-jumbo
Not sure there's any ambiguity over liability here. "But they were cycling alongside each other when I wanted to overtake. It's not my fault I knocked them out of the way!" is not likely to be a valid defence...
This particular HC rule (note, it's a suggestion not a law) is aiming, however poorly, to promote mutual consideration between groups of road users. It's not transferring liability to or from any particular party.
The wording places the onus of ensuring safety during an overtake onto the cyclist rather than the driver
Could be seen that way. However, there are other specific rules around overtaking that firmly place the obligation on the overtaker not to come into conflict with other road users.
thats what makes it ambiguous
But this is a rule for cyclists. "Move over if you think it's safe". Nowhere does it say to a driver "If a cyclist moves over then it's safe for you to overtake" - that comes under the overtaking rules, and the minimum distance guidelines. It may be ambiguous, but in no way does it pass any liability to the cyclist.
The wording is “You should … ride in single file when drivers wish to overtake and it is safe to let them do so", the cyclist is "letting" the driver overtake when the cyclist considers it to be safe. If you don't think a lawyer will use this as a loophole to get their client off the hook you'll be sorely mistaken
" ride in single file when drivers wish to overtake"
How are cyclists, especially in a group, supposed to make this decision while dodging potholes, watching side turns etc etc?
What if the driver doesn't wait until they've singled out? It takes time to communicate and each rider to react and slip into a gap, while the group doubles in length.
And it should not be based on the driver's "wish to overtake" - people wish to do all sorts of things - the responsibility must be on them to do so safely!
What a ridiculous thing to put in an official document.
When have you ever ridden in a chain gang and ridden MORE than two abreast. In fact if you're in a chain gang and somehow riding three abreast at any point you're probably not going quick enough!
The problem I see here is that it might not be clear to divers under which circumstances cyclists could be expected or required to ride single file or two abreast. That includes the police who I think would benefit from clarification on these laws given the inconsisten policing across different forces.
It's not a law.
No need to ride single file when it’s not safe to overtake though, and drivers are notoriously bad at judging when a safe overtake is possible.
This article is just click bait.
Pages