“Cyclists should be single file”: Conservative politician Susan Hall reignites two-abreast riding debate… gets reminded of Highway Code rule change from almost three years ago; Pidcock and Van Gass awarded OBE in New Year Honours + more on the live blog

If I recall correctly Ashley Neal had a vid making this same complaint - essentially "but if cyclists cycle two abreast it will be impossible to pass".

Non-issue as I see it. There is no "right to overtake", the speed limit is not a promise that you get to travel at that speed. And of course the reality is that passing distance guidelines are in reality a hope, a wish!

(My experience in urban Edinburgh is that now the majority of drivers manage to pass either safely enough or excellently eg. fully in the opposite lane. Of course it's the horrors that stick in the mind.)

If you're actually a "considerate, law-abiding driver" it's not hard: recall the guidelines say it's up to the vulnerable party (cyclists) to judge when it's safe to single-out or pull to the side. If a group are for some reason being arseholes in your opinion - well cyclists aren't all saints but that doesn't give anyone the right to assault them.
Beyond that "just don't overtake like a berk" should cover it. If you're fully in the next lane over and not going 20mph or more faster than them, blasting your horn, that would be good...

My experience in urban Edinburgh is that now the majority of drivers manage to pass either safely enough or excellently
I would give that 50% here and less than1/3 complying with the 1.5m guidelines, with 20% close enough to be disconcerting, and 5-10% which alarm even hardened old campaigners

Being in Lancs "you have my sympathies".

Outside the (sub) urban core of Edinburgh "your mileage may vary"! However the good has definitely got better over day the last 5 years. Of course the worst are unchanged!

Rick_Rude wrote:

There is certainly no way to pass some of the large groups who literally take up the entire road without passing the outer one with less than 1.5m space.

If they're "literally taking up the entire road" there would be nowhere for *anyone* to pass, in either direction, including other cyclists, no?

Indeed.

Either Rick_Rude is not a cyclist or has fallen into the "taking up the entire road" incorrect language trap, rather than "taking up the full lane" as we have the right to do.
The difference being that if cyclists are two abreast, the one on the right is likely to be in the same position as the driver of a motor vehicle, albeit without the protection of a metal cage.
And not many people will complain about a driver if they are the sole occupant of a car "taking up the whole road".

At the end of the day, those cyclists will be going at a reasonable speed so unless it is Xmas morning and the roads are completely clear it wouldn't make much difference to motorists' journey times.
There may be a good chance they will all catch up with a queue of motor traffic, with the cyclists able to filter ahead leaving the driver stuck stationary behind.

They are riding legally wether they " allow overtaking " which is code for encourage close passing.
If you want to cite the highway code learn what the words mean ,it's also on a part of the road noone should be passing

SlowWalker wrote:

Of course the bit you always miss from the new Highway Code comes just after the part about riding two abreast. It states (in the same para) "Be aware of drivers behind you and allow them to overtake (for example, by moving into single file or stopping)".

And you, of course, missed the bit that comes directly after that, which says "when you feel it is safe to let them do so". Please note that's when the cyclists feel it's safe, not when a driver believes it's safe. It is written into the code that it is always at the discretion of the cyclist to decide what is safe and what is not. If the cyclists decide that you will not be able to pass them safely - that means at or below the speed limit and no closer than 1.5 metres - they have every right to refuse to facilitate your overtaking.

Whenever I have been on a ride in a group of two or more people, we always go into single file to allow vehicles to pass and always ride in single file on busy single carriageway roads. Stopping completely, to allow vehicles to pass, is not usually practical on a busy road because we would end up standing there all day. However, we do stop on narrow roads to allow wide loads such as farm traffic to pass. I think you are lifting your observations from The Daily Telegraph/ Mail/Express.

Actually in that video, the road markings are "advising caution, as there may be obstruction in that portion of road" (or words to that effect). This is indicated by the broken line around the hatching. If the hatching were bordered by a solid white line, then a vehicle should not encroach on the hatching! To be clear, I am a cyclist, and I do drive. Had a lengthy "conversation" with a "cretin" (that was the "profanity" I shouted at him, when he passed so close I could have touched his Discovery). He pulled into his driveway a few yards after passing me, causing me to slow down, thanks. Then chased me down to lecture me on how much road tax he pays (£900he reckoned)for the privilege of driving on the roads, and therefore not having to give ANY room to cyclists!! By the time he had repeated this many times, I decided I wasnt going to get a word in, and rode off. Given that he didn't chase me again, I guess he was either satisfied, or just gave up. Shame really as I really wanted to tell him, that he didnt pay his allwgwd £900 to drive on the road, he paid it to contribute to the health care of all those affected by the amount of filth he throws around the place whist he drives on the road or elsewhere. I find it odd that when a motorist has a rant at a cycllist, they always bring up road tax, as if there is no way a cyvlist might have a vehicle and be doing the same.
Phew! I do feel better now. Thanks for listening. Xxx

Feel free to vent.  You'll find a few people here who've also experienced that fractionally delaying another road user is apparently a terrible abuse.  So terrible in fact that they can become filled with righteous anger and then spend as long as you care to hang around explaining just how important that few seconds of their time was.  Possibly through the medium of threats and/or violence.

Hopefully road.cc will avoid doing a compilation of all those reports from the year so we can forget them!

Stories like this are sadly all too common. The main components seem to be an arrogant sense of entitlement coupled with sheer ignorance and a disregard for other road users.

It amazes me how many drivers will overtake a cyclist and within a matter of yards want to turn off or pull in. It happened multiple times on a recent ride, the worst being where the driver decided to overtake as we left a 30 zone into a 40 but then immediately slowed to turn right into a housing estate. The driver behind was not expecting this and was very close to rear-ending the idiot in front.

Its very much the same bollocks as "you don't pay road tax". Ahh yes, ignoring the fact road tax doesn't exist, I forgot the rule on the road about "he who pays more has right of way on roundabouts and at junctions". 

I have paid a lot of tax over the past 5 years so I clearly should have the right not to be stuck behind all the poor people in their cars when I'm riding my bike during rush hour. Obviously I will defer to my betters who pay more tax and move to the side when they come through with their £120k land rover but those oiks who only earn £30k a year should be pulling over to let their betters past so as not to inconvenience them. 

Actually, the highway code (again)has that covered - vehicles should give way to road users who are more vulnerable (or words to that effect), ie, a truck gices way to a bus, gives way to a car, gives way to motor bike, gives way to cyclist, gives way to pedestrian (horses are in there too, if I remember correctly next to cyclists, but not sure which side)

Yeah, but as usual "guidance" and frankly just specifying what should be obvious and standard practice.  If that's not the case then it changing behaviour needs more than just exhortation...

I wonder whether, in Hall-world, a vehicle carrying multiple passengers is more important than one carrying just the driver...

Susan Hall deserves a huge amount of respect. Had she not been a halfwit, she would have won the election and made a terrific Mayor of London.

This will remain the case because humans and "in the way" (in "my" space) ... until:

a) Cycling is such a normal activity that almost everyone does it at some point (see NL) and

b) it becomes easier for drivers to accept waiting for cyclists because motor vehicle speed limits in areas where cyclists and motor vehicles share space (e.g. residential streets) are low (perhaps lower than 20mph) AND the reason for that is understood and so it's generally accepted.

... which of course also means that where motor vehicles are going much faster than 20mph cyclists should have their own space (so they feel safe and drivers are not triggered that they're "in the way").

chrisonabike wrote:

This will remain the case because humans and "in the way" (in "my" space) ... until:

a) Cycling is such a normal activity that almost everyone does it at some point (see NL) and

b) it becomes easier for drivers to accept waiting for cyclists because motor vehicle speed limits in areas where cyclists and motor vehicles share space (e.g. residential streets) are low (perhaps lower than 20mph) AND the reason for that is understood and so it's generally accepted.

... which of course also means that where motor vehicles are going much faster than 20mph cyclists should have their own space (so they feel safe and drivers are not triggered that they're "in the way").

That will only happen when drivers don't have the option to pick their own speed limit - i.e. speed limiters are fitted and can't be overridden, and that will only happen when vehicles are able to reliably detect the correct speed limit. At this point it is ridiculous that the only e-scooters that are legally allowed on the road are required to support geo-fencing, yet 1.5+ tonne vehicles can mostly reach speeds that are more than 50% over the maximum possible speed limit.

Well ... it seems to be taking hold not very far away?

(I don't have the actual compliance numbers but the mere fact people aren't burning down the city hall and setting bicycles on fire suggests that it's a case of "unusual degree of acceptance by people").

Of course in the UK there are lots of missing pieces.  Road policing is at very low levels (and police per head of population has trended down - "record numbers of police" notwithstanding), there are delayed and weak punishments and it's been made possible to quibble even these.  There's widespread social belief that these are "minimum speed limits" and that you're only taking the mick if you're more about 10mph over the limit or more.  Plus acceptence of stuff like "but it's just too hard to drive slowly".

Bigger picture - there is a determined and well-supported push-back on any of this e.g. where speed limits are reduced or speed cameras applied.  It is "ordinary people" - but not just them.  Politicians and mass media are a part as they can benefit.  And overall could that have something to do with the exceedingly well-funded promotion of motoring (for generations) - including "faster motoring"?  Of course it's hard to see how the hugely wealthy motoring and related industries could have turned the decision-makers' heads...

I've never understood the logic of having speed limits and then allowing vehicles built with the capacity to easily exceed them on the roads.