No you can't. Two cyclists take up more room than one so you would need more room to overtake safely. The "as much space as a car" is the distance from them you overtake not that you have to imagine they are the same size as car.
Strict Liability Law - Drivers to be auto blamed for all accidents with cyclists
- Thread starter Richie
- Start date
No you can't. Two cyclists take up more room than one so you would need more room to overtake safely. The "as much space as a car" is the distance from them you overtake not that you have to imagine they are the same size as car.
To overtake one car on most single carriageways you would have to move mostly if not wholly in to the opposite lane. To overtake a single cyclist LEGALLY you should do the same. Are you saying to overtake two you needed a third lane?
The "same room you would give a car" refers to the distance from the cyclist so how far in to the opposite lane you would need to go would depend upon how wide the lane is and the distance the cyclist is from the curb.
![[DOD]Asprilla](/styles/overclockers/avatars/8.png){kind=avatar}
Soldato
- Joined
- 10 Nov 2003
- Posts
- 14,034
- Location
- Surrey, by the river
I think what Dis86 is saying is that to overtake one cyclist safely you should probably be crossing the centre line with two wheels. If that's the case then what difference does it make for you to cross completely into the opposite lane to pass two cyclists?
It's a fair point I suppose, though I prefer single file when there are cars about.
It's a fair point I suppose, though I prefer single file when there are cars about.
I'm colourblind and can see a whole spectrum of colours. It's just more difficult to tell the difference between some of the colours. There are very few people who are colourblind in the way you are suggesting, and even then, you should be able to navigate the roads using only black and white. Most people completely misunderstand it and I had tons of people telling me I'm not colour blind because I can tell what colour things are with resonable accuracy.
Try it. Be sure to let us know how you get on. Bonus points if you can get a loaf of Hovis in your police mugshot
[DOD]Asprilla;24129822 said:
Because it all depends on th road, sometimes it won't be safe to overtake even one cyclist but if it is and you get stuck behind two then it can be annoying. Far too many cyclists are quick to quote it being legal to ride two abreast but ignore the bit about riding single file on busy roads and around bends.
^This^
Auto blaming the driver without any proof it was his/her fault it just plain wrong.
Get the facts, then deal with it accordingly.
Soldato
- Joined
- 10 Nov 2003
- Posts
- 14,034
- Location
- Surrey, by the river
Again, I think his point is that there really aren't may cases where it's safe to overtake one but not two. Two cyclists side by side don't take up much more room than one on their own.
I don't do it because it winds people up.
Soldato
- Joined
- 29 Dec 2004
- Posts
- 17,111
- Location
- Shepley
Have to laugh at motorists complaining about cyclists riding two abreast - do you not have the road skills and awareness to pass something smaller and slower moving than the average car? If you can't cope with that basic maneuver then you shouldn't be driving at all.
As a cyclist, I ride two abreast when it is appropriate to do so. This depends on numerous factors - volume of traffic, width of road, visibility and so on. I've lost track of how many motorists beep or shout abuse when they pass a pair of us despite not even having to deviate from their intended path due to the road being so wide. It's pathetic.
And yes, I will always drop into single file if traffic is forming behind but this is usually because the driver at the head of the queue is terrible and refuses countless safe passing opportunities, not because of cyclists.
As a cyclist, I ride two abreast when it is appropriate to do so. This depends on numerous factors - volume of traffic, width of road, visibility and so on. I've lost track of how many motorists beep or shout abuse when they pass a pair of us despite not even having to deviate from their intended path due to the road being so wide. It's pathetic.
And yes, I will always drop into single file if traffic is forming behind but this is usually because the driver at the head of the queue is terrible and refuses countless safe passing opportunities, not because of cyclists.
[DOD]Asprilla;24129955 said:
They take loads more room, especially as any sensible cyclist will be a reasonable distance from the curb and then their partner will be a reasonable distance from them for safety sake.
My point was simply about courteous behaviour towards other road users that was all, but it seems that as long as it is legal and in the Highway Code (obviously whilst ignoring the bit in the Highway Code that says ride single file on narrow or busy roads) then stuff em!
Soldato
- Joined
- 27 Dec 2005
- Posts
- 17,316
- Location
- Bristol
Funny that , as usually it takes up double the amount of space
You've purposefully misquoted his first sentence. Passing a cyclist with a foot to spare is dangerous and the amount of room you should leave a single cyclist vs two cyclists shouldn't put a car in any different a road position.
[DOD]Asprilla;24129955 said:
This.
If you ride single file motorists *will* overtake, even when it is *not* safe. Because they feel compelled to pass a cyclist at all costs (although the cyclist is the main party in danger of being hurt).
And when you tell motorists this, they say "well, roads are for cars, to be honest," like it's the cyclists fault for being there.
[FnG]magnolia;24124857 said:
And the cyclists remember the idiotic murdering vehicle drivers because they are basically every single one of them...
It goes both ways...
On a related note are car drivers getting more and more obnoxious recently. In the last few weeks I've had and seen far more obnoxious drivers than I remember there being in the past, from shouting abuse at other drivers/pedestrians and cyclists to using their horns and driving like people in films do (not stopping but hooting assuming that will save them).
I had a guy slow down and shout at me the other week when I was cycling in the dark... On a well lit 30mph road, while I was wearing a bright red jacket, and lights, in fact a powerful torch in front... I can only assume he was blind as he wanted me to get more lights... That was before he undertook me (I'd just indicated and crossed into the right hand lane to turn right at a roundabout) and shot off... So tempted to shine the torch into his wind mirrors but thought I may get the blame if he crashed...
Soldato
- Joined
- 28 Nov 2004
- Posts
- 16,024
- Location
- 9th Inner Circle
Cyclists are allowed on shared use pavements (normally marked but often not very clearly) but generally dedicated lanes or just on the road is better. Less crossing of roads, less interaction with vulnerable pedestrians.
However cyclists shouldn't be on pedestrian only pavements and you can get fined for it.
Waaaaaay to slow. 10MPH? What is the point in that? You'd be not a lot worse off walking! However, it is also more dangerous for the cyclist as they will have lots of side roads, driveways and such to cross and also puts pedestrians at risk...one could come out of a driveway or whatever and bang. A cyclist can do a lot of damage to a pedestrian. That's why shared areas normally have plenty of space for both cyclists and pedestrians.
Aye, you got what I was saying.
As is illustrated above (from the official government highway code website)
Hold up a sec.
So what some people are saying is that you should not be passing cyclists unless you can pass like above?
Surely, by riding 2-abreast, the outside cyclist is now being overtaken by a motorist with the same space as people are decrying that a single cyclist should not be overtaken by?
Anyone else not see the double-standard here?