Cyclists two abreast on busy 'A' road, selfish?

newbiejim · 27 Jul 2013 at 11:29

Yes imho.

newbiejim · 27 Jul 2013 at 11:35

Nix said:
Poster posts a pointless 'thread' title, just to rant?

Yes imho.

not really tbh, well maybe a bit lol, BUT it would be helpful if someone could clarify if indeed this is an offence or could be viewed as such.

newbiejim · 27 Jul 2013 at 11:47

arknor said:
was it narrow, busy or a bend ?

We can drive down the centre of the lane if we determine it to narrow for a car to safely overtake or when we feel it's safer for us such as at a round about when you want cars to clearly see and know which way you are heading.

cars do not have right of way over cycles we are considered vehicles on the road the same as cars etc

at the time not overly busy but they were still causing traffic to back up for no reason really, not the first time I have saw this and like others have said it does seem very selfish, and imho is probably more dangerous.

newbiejim · 27 Jul 2013 at 12:22

robz21 said:
Just bad manners,

When i cycle with friends, we'll cycle as a group, and split down into a line if traffic is heavy or we're holding people up...

I drive a car too so see it from both sides... but manners is all it boils down to...

This is exactly the issue, same as with neighbours who let their dogs bark incessantly etc. Maybe a eugenics program needs introducing then we`ll all be left with nice and polite people like us.

newbiejim · 27 Jul 2013 at 12:39

[DOD]Asprilla;24673622 said:
How is it dangerous?

imho it forces numerous unnecessary overtakes, and imho the cumulative effects of this adds to more risk of collisions etc than if cyclists were single file, imho of course.

newbiejim · 27 Jul 2013 at 13:11

[DOD]Asprilla;24673683 said:
That's why overtaking cars are supposed to give enough room when over taking. If there isn't sufficient room to overtake then wait until there is.

Even if the cyclists were single file its still an overtake.

Edit; oh, we've moved to Motors. This is going to be a balanced and considered discussion....

whilst I take your point/s in the real world there are many instances where we all have to compromise, huge lorries hanging over the white line happens all the time and we all have to move over a bit giving up some of our side of the road.Personally I wouldn't do it if cycling, and in 30yrs of motorcycling I would never think of doing it and holding other people up etc.

newbiejim · 28 Jul 2013 at 10:40

Burnsy2023 said:
When I cycle now, it's normally two abreast, because that's what I've been trained to do. It's certainly not illegal or against the highway code.

If anyone had a problem with me doing that, they certainly haven't had the stupidity to voice it yet.

Who trained you?

Would you go single file if there was a substantial traffic queue building up?

When you say about anyone voicing an opinion regarding this it sounds like you would react aggressively?

newbiejim · 28 Jul 2013 at 12:44

Burnsy2023 said:
When I'm by myself or the situation means that there isn't space. If motorists wish to overtake then they can do so when it's safe.

The Police.

I'd try to, but it depends on what else is going on and the road conditions. Sometimes it's safer for the cyclist to stay in adjacent to each other because of the road layout or other factors and my safety comes first.

No, not aggressively, but I would make sure they understood the errors of their ways. One of my colleagues was cycling on a cycleway and had a motorist give a load of abuse to him on how he was cycling on the pavement. He was visited at his home address and was warned about his inappropriate behaviour.

Your points have some validity, if a tad tenuous.I still strongly believe though cyclists two abreast on a busy A road causing constant say 6-7 vehicle queue behind them is just plain wrong, tractor drivers get done for causing queues and not pulling over to let traffic flow and imho so should cyclists if they are clearly refusing to be reasonable. I for one would forego my Wiggins/Froome inspired hobby for the greater good if I was causing hassle for the numbers of people I see *some* inconsiderate cyclists doing. I suppose though it again comes down to people being impolite.

newbiejim · 28 Jul 2013 at 15:18

Nexus said:
If Cyclists riding two abreast were causing a tailback for miles, which as many have already pointed out is such an unlikely occurrence, and something I've never really seen. Then yes, that would be selfish and they should adhere to the code and move single file.

.

Personally, I think cyclists should be moving to single file if they are causing a consistent queue of over 5 cars, can you imaging the amount of totally unnecessary hassle this self indulgent practice is causing over say a 15-20 mile cycle?

newbiejim · 28 Jul 2013 at 17:09

King85 said:
Probably zero as its hypothetical, I've never seen such an occurrence as a driver or a cyclist.

That surprises me, it happens when two cyclists are two abreast whilst the opposite carriageway is busy, a queue readily builds up.

And yes tractors etc do cause more holdups, things is cyclists are making a selfish choice by cycling two abreast and could help everyone by going single file if there is a queue behind, slow moving tractors etc can only pull in to lay bys etc at regular intervals to alleviate these issues.

newbiejim · 28 Jul 2013 at 20:05

bam0 said:
in that situation where the other side of the road is busy you shouldn't be overtaking the cyclists if they're riding single file anyway. Highway code rule 163 "give motorcyclists, cyclists and horse riders at least as much room as you would when overtaking a car"

It can be done within your own lane on wider busy A roads, anyway we all know that is stupidly impractical and pretty much no one does that so that the traffic flow is not affected adversely. It's reasonable.

newbiejim · 28 Jul 2013 at 22:25

willhub said:
If the opposite side of the carriageway is busy with a line of cars you should not overtake a cyclist....

If a cyclist could put their arm out and touch your car when overtaking that means you're going too close and doing it wrong.

One thing I notice more and more these days are cars and motorcycles stopping in the green advanced stopping line, and then get annoyed when you stop ahead of the green box and get in front of them.

I don't overtake cyclists that close,I however take issue with what is seemingly an arbitrary measure of a safe distance inasmuch as if it is arbitrary it therefore has no validity as an absolute.

And you CAN overtake a single cyclist giving him/her the same space as you would a car IF the carriageway is wide enough whereas on the self same carriageway if two abreast you cant.

newbiejim · 28 Jul 2013 at 22:36

[DOD]Asprilla;24680685 said:
Theoretically the cyclist should be 3' from the kerb and the overtaking car should give 3' clearance. Of course this a fantasy. I generally ride about 2' from the kerb but the clearance from an overtaking vehicle depends on the size and speed.

Sounds reasonable enough, BUT that's the thing, I feel I am reasonable when overtaking cyclists, factoring in if they suddenly veer right or hit a pothole and fall off/wobble etc, gives me a margin of safety etc, however I feel some cyclists display an astonishing lack of consideration for other road users, they knowingly cause other road users hassles when at no real great cost to themselves they could make things a lot easier for everyone.
IMHO if your indulging yourself in your hobby then the burden of your indulgence shouldn't rest on others.

newbiejim · 28 Jul 2013 at 22:47

[DOD]Asprilla;24680772 said:
Do you feel that about other road users as well?

Absolutely, for example tractors/slow moving vehicles that have a queue behind them but don't pull in at a reasonable opportunity to let traffic past etc.