Side-by-side cycling

[beesonthewhatnow]

Oh look, some more people who don’t know the difference between “must” and “should” when it comes to the Highway Code.

Also people who haven’t kept up to date with the current advice as given by traffic police. I guess I could go with the views of car drivers online but I think overall I’ll go with the coppers on this one.

 

[Orang Utan]

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.

Nope. If you’re trying to pass in the same lane, you’re passing too close, so it shouldn’t matter if cyclists are two abreast or not

 

[TopCat]

View attachment 236003
View attachment 236004

What does rule 66 say to you?
Plus pig cunts dont have a good grasp of the law. My considerable number of aquittals shows this.

 

[maomao]

View attachment 236003
View attachment 236004

I think I'll trust the actual Highway Code over some filth Twitter account.

 

[beesonthewhatnow]

What does rule 66 say to you?
Plus pig cunts dont have a good grasp of the law. My considerable number of aquittals shows this.

Go back and read it, paying carefully attention to the world “should” and it’s meaning in the context of the Highway Code.

 

[TopCat]

Oh look, some more people who don’t know the difference between “must” and “should” when it comes to the Highway Code.

Also people who haven’t kept up to date with the current advice as given by traffic police. I guess I could go with the views of car drivers online but I think overall I’ll go with the coppers on this one.

What traffic police advice? You quoted an unknown graphic and some surrey plod?

 

[maomao]

Nope. If you’re trying to pass in the same lane, you’re passing too close, so it shouldn’t matter if cyclists are two abreast or not

Exactly. And it actually makes a group of cyclists easier to overtake because they occupy less length of road. A motorist expecting to sail along in-lane overtaking with oncoming traffic will be upset but that would break the Highway Code in most places.

 

[Saul Goodman]

and not on the pavement

Baby steps

 

[TopCat]

Go back and read it, paying carefully attention to the world “should” and it’s meaning in the context of the Highway Code.

Why dont you just quote rule 66? Explaing how this backs up your assertion?

 

[beesonthewhatnow]

What traffic police advice? You quoted an unknown graphic and some surrey plod?

The advice they give to cyclists, drivers and training organisations. From, you know, the people whose job it is to enforce this stuff.

 

[beesonthewhatnow]

Why dont you just quote rule 66? Explaing how this backs up your assertion?

“Should”.

 

[TopCat]

The advice they give to cyclists, drivers and training organisations. From, you know, the people whose job it is to enforce this stuff.

You haven't quoted any traffic police. No evidence from them. If you have it post it up?

 

[Spymaster]

Oh look, some more people who don’t know the difference between “must” and “should” when it comes to the Highway Code.

Lol! Only a cyclist would attempt to obfuscate "you should never" and "you must never"

 

[TopCat]

“Should”.

You are being a dick I cant be bothered.

 

[beesonthewhatnow]

Lol! Only a cyclist would attempt to obfuscate "you should never" with "you must never"

That’s quite literally how the Highway Code works

 

[killer b]

I have to say bees, the tone of that graphic you posted makes me want to mow down cyclists.

 

[beesonthewhatnow]

You are being a dick I cant be bothered.

Your misunderstanding of how the Highway Code is worded - and what those words actually mean - is your failing, not mine.

 

[beesonthewhatnow]

I have to say bees, the tone of that graphic you posted makes me want to mow down cyclists.

Well, OK then

 

[maomao]

Your misunderstanding of how the Highway Code is worded - and what those words actually mean - is your failing, not mine.

Could you explain what the shoulds are there for if you don't have to do any of them then? If you had an accident while not following Highway Code advice it would affect liability.

 

[andysays]

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 would be interested to see an authoritative source for this, because it's in direct contradiction to the section of the Highway Code posted by PM one post before yours

 

[Saul Goodman]

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

Apart from rule 66 stating "You should never ride more than two abreast, and ride in single file on narrow or busy roads"?

 

[Spymaster]

You are being a dick I cant be bothered.

No, come on. We can have a laugh with this.

Bees is going to explain how his 'you can cycle two three or even more abreast. End of', is compliant with the highway code's "you should never cycle more than two abreast". He is going to do this by explaining the difference between "must" and "should". The only difference between must and should in the HC is that must is a legal requirement and should is advisory. Fuck knows how he translates that into what he has here, end of!

Let's see how he tackles this one

 

[beesonthewhatnow]

Could you explain what the shoulds are there for if you don't have to do any of them then? If you had an accident while not following Highway Code advice it would affect liability.

“Should” is advice, as based on what was considered best practice when it was written. An awful lot (not just relating to cycling) is now out of date, and as such has in effect been updated by the current enforcement levels from traffic police and guidelines issued by various training organisations.

“Must” is simple, it’s mandatory to do so.

 

[beesonthewhatnow]

Apart from rule 66 stating "You should never ride more than two abreast, and ride in single file on narrow or busy roads"?

Go talk to a traffic officer.

 

[maomao]

“Should” is advice, as based on what was considered best practice when it was written. An awful lot (not just relating to cycling) is now out of date, and as such has in effect been updated by the current enforcement levels from traffic police and guidelines issued by various training organisations.

“Must” is simple, it’s mandatory to do so.

The Highway Code is updated annually isn't it?

 

[maomao]

How many riders are there on your weekend club rides beesonthewhatnow ? If there's dozens of you they may have the pragmatic view that it's better to let you ride three or four abreast than take up 200 yards of road. I'm pretty sure it's not encouraged in normal traffic though.

 

[keybored]

Well I never, according to the Highway Code (2. Signals (103 to 106)) I should use my indicators in good time to warn other road users of my intentions. It doesn't say I have to. This will save me a small fortune in replacement bulbs, cheers Bees.

 

[platinumsage]

“Should” is advice, as based on what was considered best practice when it was written. An awful lot (not just relating to cycling) is now out of date, and as such has in effect been updated by the current enforcement levels from traffic police and guidelines issued by various training organisations.

“Must” is simple, it’s mandatory to do so.

It’s only mandatory to abide by the relevant Act - quite a few “must” instructions in the highway code are poorly worded, so I would never take them as gospel without looking up how the law is worded.

 

[andysays]

Go talk to a traffic officer.

Are you saying he should or he must?

 

[beesonthewhatnow]

Well I never, according to the Highway Code (2. Signals (103 to 106)) I should use my indicators in good time to warn other road users of my intentions. It doesn't say I have to. This will save me a small fortune in replacement bulbs, cheers Bees.

Technically, yes. Like I said, large chunks of the Highway code are horribly out of date. The entire thing needs a comprehensive rewrite from start to finish, along with most of the traffic laws.