- 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
Two abreast - cheltenham flyer tori and skardy 2GMB slammed on social media after asking: “Should cyclists be forced to ride single file?”
ITV’s flagship morning show, Good Morning Britain, has been slammed on social media after it aired a segment entitled “Should cyclists ride single file?” which pitched broadcaster and cyclist Matt Barbet, who patiently explained why it is often safer for people to ride two abreast, against writer and BBC DJ Ed Adoo, who ignored the question at hand and instead dredged up an anecdote from eight years ago, saying that people on bikes need to show more “etiquette.”
The piece, which can be viewed on ITV Hub – it starts at 2 hours 10 minutes into the recording – began with one of the show’s hosts saying, “Drivers and cyclists testing the other’s patience,” with his co-presenter adding, “But with more cyclists than ever on Britain’s roads, should those taking to two wheels be forced to ride single file?”
It then cut to a brief report where, after some dashcam footage and a few vox pops, the reporter said: “Part of the problem, say cycling groups, is Rule 66 of the Highway Code, causing confusion.”
The reporter says that campaigners are calling for the rule to be changed to read, “You can ride two abreast, and often it is safer to do so.”
Both British Cycling and Cycling UK did incorporate those words into their suggestions for a new version of the rule in response a Department for Transport (DfT) consultation last year into proposed changes to the Highway Code.
> Fleet Street fury over campaigners' calls to clarify ‘two abreast’ cycling rule
Currently, the rule says: “You should never ride more than two abreast, and ride in single file on narrow or busy roads and when riding round bends.”
The DfT has proposed amending the rule to read that cyclists 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.”
Barbet, a former presenter of Daybreak, the predecessor show to GMB, as well as ITV4’s The Cycle Show and its Tour of Britain coverage, was invited to put his response first and began by saying that viewing cyclists and motorists as separate tribes was a fallacy, pointing out that most people he knows who ride bikes drive cars, too. “It’s not cyclists clogging up the roads, it’s cars,” he added.
It’s been a busy Bank Holiday weekend on the roads, but many drivers have been frustrated, getting stuck behind rows of cyclists out enjoying a pedal in the sunshine.
With more cyclists than ever on Britain’s roads, should cyclists be forced to ride in single file?#GMB pic.twitter.com/wBpNUseFMW
— Good Morning Britain (@GMB) May 31, 2021
He went on to explain how riding two abreast makes it easier and safer for motorists to overtake cyclists, as has been clearly shown in this video produced by journalist and author Carlton Reid six years ago which features advanced driving instructor Blaine Walsh and champion cyclist turned active travel advocate Chris Boardman.
Side by Side from carltonreid on Vimeo.
He also highlighted the principle of the hierarchy of road users, which puts the most vulnerable, first pedestrians, then cyclists, at the bottom of a pyramid, and those driving vehicles with the propensity to do most harm, such as HGVs, at the top.
Incorporating the concept within the Highway Code formed part of last year’s consultation, with the DfT saying that it “ensures that those road users who can do the greatest harm have the greatest responsibility to reduce the danger or threat they may pose to other road users.
“The objective of the hierarchy is not to give priority to pedestrians, cyclists and horse riders in every situation, but rather to ensure a more mutually respectful and considerate culture of safe and effective road use that benefits all users,” the DfT added.
As often appears to be the case when TV shows seek to put forward a ‘balanced’ debate on a whole host of supposedly divisive topics, not just cycling, the counterpoint to someone putting forward a case based on facts and evidence was instead based on anecdote and sweeping generalisations.
Adoo started his reply to Bardet by recounting an incident in 2013 in which a cyclist swore at him, which prompted him to pen a column at the time for Huffington Post which was published under the headline, It's Time We Gained Some Respect From Cyclists.
'There needs to be some etiquette with cyclists' - @EdwardAdoo
It's the age-old dilemma between cyclists and drivers and a solution doesn't seem to be on the horizon! pic.twitter.com/7KgWp5ZLA0
— Good Morning Britain (@GMB) May 31, 2021
In that column, written at the end of a month in which six cyclists had been killed on London’s roads, Adoo dismissed safety measures such as protected cycle lanes or banning HGVs, claiming, “The problem is it's nothing to do with bus or lorry drivers but the cyclist [sic] themselves.”
In his conclusion to that piece, he added: “The bottom line, cyclists need to learn how to respect other motorists and not do idiotic things such as riding without a helmet or protected gear.
“It has to stop and I think a cycle registration or tax scheme would ensure first and foremost, that deaths are reduced.”
On GMB this morning, he returned to that theme – without once addressing the specific issue supposedly being debated.
'There needs to be some etiquette with cyclists' - @EdwardAdoo
It's the age-old dilemma between cyclists and drivers and a solution doesn't seem to be on the horizon! pic.twitter.com/7KgWp5ZLA0
— Good Morning Britain (@GMB) May 31, 2021
“I’m not saying that all cyclists are morally wrong, and they’re rude and they swear all the time,” he insisted.
“Yes, you are,” Barbet interjected.
“No, I’m not saying all cyclists are rude,” Adoo replied, “what I’m saying is there needs to be etiquette with cyclists,” going on to repeat his call for cyclists to be registered.
Asked by Barbet if he ever rode a bike on the road, he answered: “Yeah, loads of times.”
“You know how intimidating it can feel, don’t you?” Barbet said.
“Listen, it’s not about intimidation, it’s about respect on both sides,” Adoo insisted.
“But again, some cyclists – especially London – they think they own the roads, and they don’t, it should be that the highway should be for everyone, and for everyone to owe respect.”
Among those responding to GMB’s tweets of clips of today’s segment was Detective Chief Superintendent Andy Cox of Lincolnshire Police, national lead for road collision investigations.
The real safety priority is improved driving culture. Too many drivers feel an entitlement to rush past the #cyclist even when that means a ‘close pass’ adding unacceptable levels of risk & for only marginal time gains. More patience is needed until a safe pass is possible. #GMB
— Andy Cox (@AndyCoxDCS) May 31, 2021
Unsurprisingly, the clips also drew the usual share of comments about how cyclists should have to be insured and pay non-existent ‘road tax’ – points that were quickly countered by other Twitter users.
That’s not true is it? Drivers have all those regulatory identifications and they break road rules significantly more than cyclists. https://t.co/kbVNpKAGik the only difference is your bias- you perceive cyclists break more because you’re not one.
— Tom Staniford (@tomstaniford) May 31, 2021
One of the most idiotic representations I've read.
How much public money do you think is spent dealing with over THREE HUNDRED ROAD COLLISIONS PER DAY.
What do you have to say about almost 25,000 killed or seriously injured on our roads per year? pic.twitter.com/KGnd5b7o1a
— Drew White (@drewsonix) May 31, 2021
Thanks for stirring, @GMB. Now when I ride on the road I can deal with a few more dangerous, ill-informed, entitled drivers threatening my safety. All for your clicks.
— Tom Staniford (@tomstaniford) May 31, 2021
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
- LeadenSkies 5 min 9 sec ago
It's endemic now. Watched a skip lorry jump two reds within 100m on my commute this morning. No intention of stopping.
- brooksby 9 min 24 sec ago
And if they park on the cycle lane, they're still impacting the flow of traffic. Different traffic - two-wheeled, human-powered traffic rather...
- Patrick9-32 13 min 24 sec ago
Reducing prices dramatically on stock you have paid full price for means making a loss, margins in the bike industry are slim. You can't increase...
- cyclisto 29 min 12 sec ago
I strugle to think other as cool bikes as this. If my city was flatter and I fitter, I would drool over it....
- Cugel 46 min 43 sec ago
If RoadCC and similar specialist mass media organs were serious about being not just ethical about climate change factors but about the whole...
- chrisonabike 1 hour 39 min ago
Hellish! Barely used, clearly dangerous, slowing competent cyclists down while pandering to the clueless, a serious threat to pedestrians, won't...
- David9694 2 hours 6 min ago
"I ran into the back of him because I was traumatised by seeing the latest petrol prices, m'lud"
- hawkinspeter 2 hours 48 min ago
Are you sure? Norway is socialist and has a very high quality of life.
- ErnieC 5 hours 10 min ago
Glad I got mine before that change in ownership.
- yellowjack 11 hours 8 min ago
Same sketch everywhere, or so it seems. Take Whitelegg Way in Bournemouth. Wide cycle lanes put in both sides of a (formerly very wide) two lane...
Add new comment
62 comments
Reframe the question. Should cyclists as legitimate road users be forced to share the width of a lane with motorists at the risk of their safety, for the motorist's convenience?
The words we use change the interpretation considerably, don't they?
The usual uninformed clap trap trotted out by an uninformed, untrained Journalist. What a surprise. We have an attitude on the roads in this country of Might is Right. Its nothing to do with two abreast its more about impatient self entitled Drivers who just don't want to slow down. Until we change that we will have vulnerable road users killed and injured and nothing will improve. Move the onous onto the Trucks,Vans and Cars and Pedestrians,Cyclists and Horse Riders will all be better off. As to insurance? Join the CTC or British Cycling..problem solved. The organisations will also have more clout by way of more members. Cyclists don't always follow the rules, we do stupid things but who pays the price? Yep the Cyclists.
You can take Piers Morgan off of GMB but not the Piers Morgan out of GMB. Sad to say he was a symptom - not a cause.
Oh GMB.. you bunch of lickspittles.
In your rush to get 'anyone on' in opposition to the 'answer clearly defined to the question,' you ended up with a right knob-jockey (pun intended). Is that good TV, did you entertain?
Of course when the motorist demands 'respect', they really mean 'deference'.
Quite, I had a driver cut up and brake check me and a mate cos we were "riding 2 abreast" (we weren't, not that it mattered), and "holding up the traffic". Again not.
Eventually, after inviting us to go round the corner to sort it out like men ( at that point we laughed like drains) he instructed us to "show some respect" (more hilarity) before driving off.
deference indeed....
Yes, curious how "respect" translates differently for him depending on who is showing the respect to whom.
Cyclist showing driver respect = getting out of their way to ensure that they never ever have to slow down.
Driver showing cyclist respect = graciously allowing them to be on the road at all, subject at all times to their constant demonstration of respect to drivers as defined above.
I was beeped on Sunday for failing to overtake 2 cyclists who were about 1.5 width. The road was 40 and windy and I knew a vehicle would appear any second and there was a straight bit just coming up.
No doubt I wanted to provoke a reaction and get footage in 'this column'.
Drama queen....
Unfortunately so many people are completely biased against cyclists and there is no changing it.
I did a little social experiment on Facebook the other week using presumed liability. I asked a question which basically said that "Would you be in favour of a law that meant that in a collision between a pedestrian and a cyclist, the cyclist would be presumed to be liable unless they could prove otherwise?" To which everyone that responded said - yes of course we are.
But it will come as no surprise to you that when I added in that the same law would mean that in a collision between a cyclist and a motorist the motorist would be presumed to be liable unless they could prove otherwise that virtually everyone that responded did a complete U turn
Maybe they should give the commentators they invite on a quick pop quiz on the Highway Code before they're allowed to say their piece, just to check that they know what they're talking about.
The other pre-appearance quiz should be getting them to explain how licensing cyclists should work in real life. At what age does a cyclist need a license and insurance? Are they allowed to only cycle on pavements until that age? Are they only allowed to cycle on roads after that age? What happens when a parent is out with their child on seperate bikes?
It would require: new legislation, retrofitting existing bikes with number plates, selling new bikes with registrations, a licencing system and Gov database(s), enforcement tech (like ANPR), unless number plates are the same size and format as on cars, education. The reason this isn't done anywhere is because it costs too much and brings no benefits. It would also fuel calls for more road investment for cycle infrastructure...It's exactly why it's a non-starter.
These anti-cyclist fanatics would know this if they pulled their heads out their backsides.
Oh I know, but it would be nice for people like Adoo to voice these rather then just shout about it is needed without considering the laws and rules required and logistics and infra. He essentially wants to take bikes off of children for example.
The scooter hires in birmingham have ID numbers on them for people to use to report misuse etc, however if you see the size of them........
MSM Love stories like this as it attracts the majority of their lame brain viewers. Doesent help those who ride the roads each day though, and have to put up with even more aggression from impatient motorists who genrally use your position on the road as an excuse for their pi$$ poor driving.
When a motorist is effectively saying that they are unable to negotiate a safe overtake of a slower road user, be it; tractor, car, 2 cyclists abreast, a horse and rider or Father Christmas doing his rounds with the local charity, all that statement really demonstrates is a lack of basic competence.
Consistently laying blame on the other party is really a cry for help to become better trained in the skill of driving.
Very well put...
I had exactly the same discussion with someone on Facebook in response to a close pass initiative. The drivers argument came down to "If you ride in single file it means I only need to put two wheels onto the wrong side of the road to pass you..... and that means its safer" - and when I suggested that if it was not safe for him to pass by putting all 4 wheels over the centre line it probably wasn't safe to pass with 2 wheels over the centre line all I got was "I've been driving for 50 years I know when it is safe to overtake"
And to back up how much of an inconvenience cyclists were he had "to follow cyclists riding 2 abreast on 3 seperate occasions this year on a main road"
Another of my favourites:
The amount of time, as a driver, that I have spent being held up by cyclists over the last 40 plus years of driving over maybe half a million miles can be measured in terms of minutes. The amount of time spent in traffic jams on motorways (no cylists) would be in the order of weeks if not months.
How to overtake a cyclist
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qBg1aD3XEQo
There do seem to be a lot of motorists on the roads who are very averse to moving their steering wheel... God knows how they cope with junctions.
Probably the same people who drive over those small roundabouts, instead of, you know, around them.
mutter mumble get me coat rhubarb....
Or as I have found on the wrong side of them when effectively moving from the minor to major road with a limited view.
Just think of what he could have achieved with that lost time. When will this senseless waste of lives end? Oh the humanity.....
It's a matter of perspective. To him it is safer - because it IS safer for him.
He is not paying a moment's thought to whether it is safer for the cyclist.
If he only has two wheels over the line, he can pull back in much quicker if something suddenly pops into view. He may endanger, obstruct or even maim/kill the cyclist(s) in the process. But insofar as he has a very slightly higher chance of avoiding a head on collision than if he went fully over to the other side, he's right. And that's really all he is thinking about.
Bless
Doesn't the highway code say that drivers should give cyclists as much space as other cars/road users? In which case it wouldn't matter if cyclists were 2 abreast.
Drivers on my local dual carriageway (which is 40mph and is the main route back to my house) can't even cross the white line to give space even when the adjacent lane is empty. They show no respect.
Dammit, get outta here with your facts and logic! Whaddya think this is????
I have always felt that line in the HC was never clear (and I suspect many here would agree). Not only is there no dimensions given, there is no definition of space.
Does it mean the space between the rider and the overtaking car should be the same as if it were a car being overtaken, because you can pass a 1.5t car at 60mph wih maybe a 500mm gap without there being any adverse effect. doing the same to a cyclist is bloody scary
Or does it mean the gap beween the overtaking car and the verge should be the same as if you were overtaking a car in that space.
I would much rather that it were clearer, something like "all ovetakesing should be done by driving fully in the next lane to the right whaen it is clear and safe to do so" with an exception for single track roads where there is no second lane and a definite list of dos and don'ts for single tracks
Pages