Side-by-side cycling

[ska invita]

This is interesting

i never knew it was encouraged

im a bike rider and also a car driver and whilst when driving i give bikes a lot more space on the road than other drivers i see, i have been annoyed at people riding two abreast and blocking up the road effectively. If your going at 15 mph on a bike and theres plenty of room for cars to overtake you (that most roads IME) then surely you shouldnt drive two abreast - and is that what theyre saying should become the norm?

UK cycling groups say rule on riding side-by-side is ‘causing confusion’

Cycling two abreast can be safer, say campaigners calling for update to Highway Code

www.theguardian.com

 

[Jay Park]

This is interesting

i never knew it was encouraged

im a bike rider and also a car driver and whilst when driving i give bikes a lot more space on the road than other drivers i see, i have been annoyed at people riding two abreast and blocking up the road effectively. If your going at 15 mph on a bike and theres plenty of room for cars to overtake you (that most roads IME) then surely you shouldnt drive two abreast - and is that what theyre saying should become the norm?

UK cycling groups say rule on riding side-by-side is ‘causing confusion’

Cycling two abreast can be safer, say campaigners calling for update to Highway Code

www.theguardian.com

single file, surely

 

[maomao]

If your going at 15 mph on a bike and theres plenty of room for cars to overtake you (that most roads IME) then surely you shouldnt drive two abreast

I've never seen anyone doing it at such a slow speed. It's mostly club riders and the like ime and they're rarely that slow.

Anyway, it's safer and always been good practice within the highway code so I'm all for making it clearer.

 

[Pickman's model]

the current rule 66

 

[beesonthewhatnow]

One of the most misunderstood (by drivers) rules there is.

Cyclists are free to ride 2, 3 or more abreast. It is often the safest way to ride. Full stop, end of.

 

[cupid_stunt]

Paging Spymaster.

 

[sleaterkinney]

When overtaking cyclists you're supposed to give at least room as you do a car, which means going into the opposite lane. If cyclists are riding in twos this means it will take you less time to get around them than if they were all in single file, so it's actually better.

Using the road - Overtaking (162 to 169)

Before overtaking you should make sure the road is sufficiently clear ahead

www.highwaycodeuk.co.uk

 

[ska invita]

Well I've seen it happen in London, approx 15 mph, riders chatting, lovely expect it's a 30mph London road and it's causing a tailback and single file would be no hassle to the riders

 

[Badgers]

This is interesting

i never knew it was encouraged

im a bike rider and also a car driver and whilst when driving i give bikes a lot more space on the road than other drivers i see, i have been annoyed at people riding two abreast and blocking up the road effectively. If your going at 15 mph on a bike and theres plenty of room for cars to overtake you (that most roads IME) then surely you shouldnt drive two abreast - and is that what theyre saying should become the norm?

UK cycling groups say rule on riding side-by-side is ‘causing confusion’

Cycling two abreast can be safer, say campaigners calling for update to Highway Code

www.theguardian.com

 

[Saul Goodman]

One of the most misunderstood (by drivers) rules there is.

Cyclists are free to ride 2, 3 or more abreast. It is often the safest way to ride. Full stop, end of.

I think the people who don't get it are the cyclists. If it's a busy road, ride single file. Pretty much every road in London would be considered a busy road, so you should be riding single file. Full stop. End of.

 

[Pickman's model]

tbh having some sort of mandatory training for cyclists

Paging Spymaster.

let's get this party started

 

[Pickman's model]

I think the people who don't get it are the cyclists. If it's a busy road, ride single file. Pretty much every road in London would be considered a busy road, so you should be riding single file. Full stop. End of.

and not on the pavement

 

[TopCat]

I've never seen anyone doing it at such a slow speed. It's mostly club riders and the like ime and they're rarely that slow.

Anyway, it's safer and always been good practice within the highway code so I'm all for making it clearer.

The highway code says dont ride more than two abreast. Fuck all the club cyclists doing this.

 

[Badgers]

The highway code says dont ride two abreast.

Where?

 

[killer b]

I'd never dare do it as a cyclist, but I'm glad other cyclists do it and am happy to amble along behind them - car drivers should be reminded as often as possible that they don't own the road.

 

[beesonthewhatnow]

The highway code says dont ride two abreast.

No, it doesn’t.

 

[beesonthewhatnow]

I think the people who don't get it are the cyclists. If it's a busy road, ride single file. Pretty much every road in London would be considered a busy road, so you should be riding single file. Full stop. End of.

You are wrong. How busy a road is has literally nothing to do with anything here.

 

[Spymaster]

Cyclists are free to ride 2, 3 or more abreast. It is often the safest way to ride. Full stop, end of.

Now that's not what rule 66 of the highway code says, is it?

 

[Badgers]

FFS

 

[maomao]

Rule 66 of the highway code is right above these two posts which both get it wrong (in different ways):

One of the most misunderstood (by drivers) rules there is.

Cyclists are free to ride 2, 3 or more abreast. It is often the safest way to ride. Full stop, end of.

The highway code says dont ride two abreast.

Rule 66 says 'never more than 2 abreast' so you're both wrong.

 

[TopCat]

One of the most misunderstood (by drivers) rules there is.

Cyclists are free to ride 2, 3 or more abreast. It is often the safest way to ride. Full stop, end of.

Not full stop not end of. Rule 66 is pretty clear.

 

[TopCat]

Rule 66 of the highway code is right above these two posts which both get it wrong (in different ways):





Rule 66 says 'never more than 2 abreast' so you're both wrong.

I left out more than and edited.

 

[sleaterkinney]

Well I've seen it happen in London, approx 15 mph, riders chatting, lovely expect it's a 30mph London road and it's causing a tailback and single file would be no hassle to the riders

But you'd still have to go into the opposite lane to overtake, so what difference does it make?.

 

[TopCat]

No, it doesn’t.

Please read and quote rule 66.

 

[Badgers]

Rule 66 says 'never more than 2 abreast' so you're both wrong.

Not full stop not end of. Rule 66 is pretty clear.

Pretty clear?

 

[TopCat]

Where?

Rule 66.

 

[TopCat]

Pretty clear?

Fucking pedants.
Totally crystal clear.

 

[beesonthewhatnow]

 

[gentlegreen]

It's sad when us "mere" cyclists have to educate the highly skilled road tax payers about using the full width of the road to overtake and not doing it on blind bends or yards from a roundabout ...

 

[Spymaster]

Rule 66 of the highway code is right above these two posts which both get it wrong (in different ways):





Rule 66 says 'never more than 2 abreast' so you're both wrong.

Bees is a cyclist though.

You can't expect him to understand the highway code.