Support road.cc

Like this site? Help us to make it better.

news

New Forest sportive riders slammed by motorists for not riding single file

New Forest 100 participants 'cause anguish to Forest stock' say critics in re-run of row from last year...

A sportive event in the New Forest has come under fire, with motorists and farmers complaining that cyclists are inconsiderate when riding in the area.

The New Forest 100, which was held two weeks ago, was the latest cycle event to anger locals. Last year we reported how an increase in the number of cyclists there is posing a danger to pedestrians and livestock, according to the chairman of a body representing the rights of Commoners in the New Forest.

Frances Baye, a motorist, told the Salisbury Journal that she had been held up by the New Forest 100. She said: “I was trying to overtake the cyclists as I was approaching Burley and it was virtually impossible.

“A group of cyclists refused to get into single file and continued to overtake each other, despite knowing there was a queue of traffic behind them.

“I am not against these cyclists enjoying the fresh air and getting fit but think consideration has to be the priority.”

A resident, who asked not to be named, said: “Despite these types of events not being classed as a race, the competitors are consistently in a hurry to pass other competitors at speed and in large packs.

“They can cause anguish to Forest stock and other cyclists, including children, who are not involved in the race, as well as cars and other vehicles.

“Last weekend was really the last straw with a ridiculous numbers of competitors.

“There were as many as four cyclists abreast on each side of the road; they were nearly crashing into each other at speed, going downhill, never mind the traffic trying to go up and down the road.

On the cycling section of its website, the New Forest National Park Authority says “You are welcome to cycle on public roads, byways open to all traffic, public bridleways, restricted bridleways, and dedicated cycle routes. You are not permitted to ride over the Open Forest, or on Forestry Commission tracks which are not dedicated cycle routes. Cycling on public footpaths is also not permitted.”

The National Park’s boundaries roughly correspond to the area of heathland and woodland within which some 500 commoners are entitled to graze livestock including cattle, donkeys, pigs, sheep and, most famously, ponies.

Last year, Dr Graham Ferris, Dr Graham Ferris, chairman of the New Forest Commoners’ Defence Association (NFCDA), established in 1909 “in response to the increasing conflict between the spreading urban populations around the New Forest’s fringes and the commoners’ animals,” said that the number of cyclists riding in the New Forest nowadays meant that “The roads are effectively obstructed and confrontations leading to a breach of the peace are likely.”

Concern for livestock was cited then and now as reasons to keep cyclists in line during mass events.

But data compiled by the New Forest National Park Authority clearly demonstrate that it is motorists, not cyclists, who pose by far the the greater risk to livestock in the Forest.

During 2009, 24 foals and 41 mares were either killed outright or had to be put down following collisions with motor vehicles in the New Forest. There were no reported occurrences of animals being killed in incidents involving cyclists.

Director of UK Cycling Events, organisers of the New Forest 100, Martin Barden said: “Some 1,300 people took part in the New Forest 100, many of whom travelled from all over the country to take part, to experience the beautiful national park and assist the local economy in these difficult times.

“There are one or two people who live in the New Forest who believe they own the New Forest roads.

“The roads are public highways and cyclists have every right to cycle along them and get fit and enjoy the New Forest.

“The event on Sunday was a non-competitive event, with riders’ start times spread out from 7.30am to 10.15am.

“As per our terms and conditions, anyone who is deemed to be racing would be disqualified.

“We ask cyclists to ride considerately and in single file where possible, although riders are legally allowed to ride two abreast.”

As well as the New Forest 100, UK Cycling Events runs the Wiggle New Forest Spring Sunday Sportive, and it is also home to the New Forest Rattler and a recent ride out with the Garmin pro team.

Add new comment

156 comments

Avatar
Stumps | 11 years ago
0 likes

Never ridden a sportive, audax or whatever you want to call them and probably never will.

As such i cant comment on who or what is at fault but can i just point out that in this day and age just about everyone complains about everything. Doesn't make them right though and that includes a lot of us.

Avatar
Coleman replied to Brummmie | 11 years ago
0 likes
Brummmie wrote:

The cyclists that insist on riding 2 abreast on narrow lanes whilst having a nice chat and won't just move to let a single car passed piss me right off. It's selfish and unsafe.

When I'm out riding I make a point of moving from riding 2 abreast as soon as I'm aware of a car behind. I also make a point of thanking patient driver, just a raise of the hand and a nod goes a very long way !

I cycle around Lichfield, Tamworth and Derbyshire areas and it shocks me how many dickhead cyclists there are with no regard for drivers or their fellow cyclists. Most cyclists acknowledge each other with a hand, nod or a simple "morning mate" but more and more are just plain fecking ignorant to any kind of extended pleasantry ! These guys don't love cycling, no. These are SERIOUS CYCLISTS..............

You know who you are guys. Assos, Pinarello, no helmet, designer glasses, on your way out when I've already done my morning miles !

Knobbers................

Maybe they're ignoring you because they're concerned you might take issue with their bike/ kit/ 'designer glasses'.

Avatar
Bez | 11 years ago
0 likes

@Simon E - "I wonder what the traffic count of cars in the New Forest on Sundays would be."

- Anyone with any sense doesn't go anywhere near the New Forest on a Sunday in school holidays or when it's sunny. Queues several miles long on the main roads are extremely common.

@nbrus - "So you do agree with me..."

 3 ...In a way, yes. But I disagree with the idea that encouraging close passing is usually a great idea, and I disagree with the idea that it's any road user's responsibility to allow the person behind them on the road to be able to come round corners at a speed at which they cannot cope with hazards in the road. Maybe I got the wrong end of the stick and that's not quite what you were saying, I dunno.

As an aside, I always find one of the most annoying things with groups is not how many abreast they are but simply whether they've thought about how a car needs to pass, which is to get past quickly and then pull in safely. Often there's not enough gap between one little pack and another one in front, or there's a straggler hanging off the back who's trying to keep up with someone else and sitting 20 or 30 yards off them (thus forcing either one extremely long pass or a dangerous cut-in) rather than falling back a bit more and allowing people to do the job in two shorter, safer passes.

Avatar
JulesW replied to nbrus | 11 years ago
0 likes
nbrus wrote:

It should be made an offence for cyclists not to move into single file when faster moving traffic approaches ... imagine coming round a bend, at a legal speed, only to be confronted by a pack of slow moving cyclists taking up the full width of the lane ... they are a danger to themselves and others. Even two abreast this is still not a safe way to ride on the public highway. Yes there are some idiot drivers out there too, but that doesn't mean we need to be idiots too.

Presumably, if a car was coming so fast that he would be unable to cope when confronted by a pack of slow moving cyclists he would somehow be able to cope with a car driving in the same manner as him? It could easily be a horse, a group of ramblers or a child around that corner.

If the lanes are slow, drivers should slow down and cyclists should also think ahead.

There were earlier in the posts arguments about 50m of cyclists riding two abreast. Presumably this would become at least 100m if riding in single file. I'm not sure if that would help.

It is all very different from a friend's experience riding in France. The local club went out and was 50 or 60 strong. When they turned crossed a dual carriageway, oncoming cars stopped so that the peleton would keep together. It's not a legal requirement but just a considerate action. How refreshing.

Avatar
sihall34 | 11 years ago
0 likes

Nic,

You seem to have a lack of understanding how to sensibly overtake cyclists according to the Highway Code as well as giving the impression you are not a very good driver if you can't deal with anything on the road when you go round a blind corner (maybe try going slower?). Try readying this website, it will tell you how you should overtake as well as why cyclists should ride two abreast: http://ukcyclelaws.blogspot.com/.

Avatar
crazy-legs | 11 years ago
0 likes
Quote:

It is all very different from a friend's experience riding in France. The local club went out and was 50 or 60 strong. When they turned crossed a dual carriageway, oncoming cars stopped so that the peleton would keep together. It's not a legal requirement but just a considerate action. How refreshing.

Agreed. In Spain it IS a legal requirement. A group of cyclists is treated in the same way as a large/long vehicle. So if the front rider goes through a green light which then changes to red, the rest of the peloton still has right of way so they can keep together. Same as if the cab unit of a lorry goes through and the light changes to red while his trailer is in the middle of the junction. It's a really refreshing attitude and as a result, everyone (cyclists and drivers) are far less stressed about it all.

If you can't safely overtake a "long vehicle" (be that a group of cyclists or a tractor/trailer) then you don't attempt to get past, it really is that simple.

I can't see why drivers will sit behind a tractor for 2 or 3 miles but will impatiently try to barge their way through a group of cyclists - it's exactly the same principle. If you can let the driver past then do so (single out, pull in, wave them through, whatever it may be) but if you can't it's hardly your fault or problem.

Having said that, I'm well aware that there are some cyclists out there too militant, stupid or unaware to behave in a considerate fashion so I can see how some motorists can get riled.

Avatar
dave atkinson replied to nbrus | 11 years ago
0 likes
nbrus wrote:

imagine coming round a bend, at a legal speed, only to be confronted by a pack of slow moving cyclists taking up the full width of the lane

I'm imagining that.

highway code wrote:

Stopping Distances. Drive at a speed that will allow you to stop well within the distance you can see to be clear.

if you're driving too fast to stop for a group of slow moving cyclists, you're driving too fast. period.

highway code wrote:

The speed limit is the absolute maximum and does not mean it is safe to drive at that speed irrespective of conditions. Driving at speeds too fast for the road and traffic conditions is dangerous

what if the group of slow moving cyclists is a pack of not-moving ponies? or a man getting the jack out of the boot of his car because he has a flat tyre? is it their fault when you plough into them because you're driving 'legally'?

Avatar
dave atkinson | 11 years ago
0 likes

what i'm saying is changing the law because car drivers can't obey the law as it is isn't the solution.

Avatar
nbrus replied to dave atkinson | 11 years ago
0 likes
Dave Atkinson wrote:
nbrus wrote:

imagine coming round a bend, at a legal speed, only to be confronted by a pack of slow moving cyclists taking up the full width of the lane

I'm imagining that.

highway code wrote:

Stopping Distances. Drive at a speed that will allow you to stop well within the distance you can see to be clear.

if you're driving too fast to stop for a group of slow moving cyclists, you're driving too fast. period.

highway code wrote:

The speed limit is the absolute maximum and does not mean it is safe to drive at that speed irrespective of conditions. Driving at speeds too fast for the road and traffic conditions is dangerous

what if the group of slow moving cyclists is a pack of not-moving ponies? or a man getting the jack out of the boot of his car because he has a flat tyre? is it their fault when you plough into them because you're driving 'legally'?

Just to put things in context ... are you saying none of the things I mentioned happen? As I said numerous times, it's not about who is right, it's about staying safe ... people make mistakes ... especially if they are impatient, or stressed. When you are lying in hospital recovering from a collision with another vehicle, do you care whether or not you were entitled to ride legally two abreast? You will be entitled to compensation from their insurer, though you would need to survive the accident to make use of it.

Oh, and motorists do have accidents with tractors, ponies, stopped vehicles, etc. ... doesn't mean we should create situations that increase risk. Cyclists have a choice (ride single file), tractors don't.

Avatar
nbrus | 11 years ago
0 likes

Is there a solution?  1

Doesn't it make sense to cycle defensively and be prepared for the unexpected? ... we can't control how motorists behave, but we can control how we (cyclists) behave and take measures to reduce risk at every opportunity.

Avatar
sihall34 | 11 years ago
0 likes

Nic,

It's true people make mistakes so why don't we force all drivers to drive at 10mph everywhere, that would stop mistakes right?

Drivers also have a choice to follow the Highway Code (just like cyclists do when riding two abreast) and drive an appropriate speed for the road conditions and slow down when approaching blind bends and overtake cyclists safely giving them the space they are entitled to as per the Highway Code.

Note my mentions of the Highway Code, please read it.

Avatar
Bez replied to nbrus | 11 years ago
0 likes
nbrus wrote:

Oh, and motorists do have accidents with tractors, ponies, stopped vehicles, etc. ... doesn't mean we should create situations that increase risk. Cyclists have a choice (ride single file), tractors don't.

The flipside is that riding two abreast forces motorists to overtake only if there's nothing coming, whereas riding single file can allow people to squeeze through dangerously when there isn't sufficient space to do it safely.

Which is the greater risk? Who knows - it's a guessing game and it varies constantly.

Avatar
dave atkinson replied to nbrus | 11 years ago
0 likes
nbrus wrote:

Is there a solution?  1

Doesn't it make sense to cycle defensively and be prepared for the unexpected? ... we can't control how motorists behave, but we can control how we (cyclists) behave and take measures to reduce risk at every opportunity.

minimum risk of injury to cyclists is no cyclists at all

don't ever forget that when you're talking about tightening the laws restricting cyclists

Avatar
nbrus replied to dave atkinson | 11 years ago
0 likes

I love cycling, so I don't ever want to be needlessly restricted. I do see both sides of the argument and only pack cyclists and two abreast cyclists infuriate me ... because they are a hazard.

Avatar
nbrus | 11 years ago
0 likes

Highway Code Rule 66:

"You should never ride more than two abreast, and ride in single file on narrow or busy roads and when riding round bends…"

Trouble is cyclists don't stick to this rule and pack riding on a main roads is clearly in breach of the highway code (single file on busy roads).

... "busy" is another way of saying "traffic is present", so in this case single file riding when traffic is present seems to be an appropriate interpretation.

Two abreast on quiet country lanes is obviously fine, or on quiet stretches of any other road.

Avatar
dave atkinson replied to nbrus | 11 years ago
0 likes
nbrus wrote:

... "busy" is another way of saying "traffic is present"

really? i always thought busy meant, well. busy.

Avatar
sihall34 | 11 years ago
0 likes

Highway Code Rule 163:
Give motorcyclists, cyclists and horse riders at least as much room as you would when overtaking a car (see Rules 211-215)

There is also a picture on the direct gov Highway Code website showing a car passing a cyclist with this amount of room, the car is almost all on the other side of the road, just as it would be if it were overtaking a car.

If a car is overtaking according to rule 163, it shouldn't matter if they are two abreast or not as they still occupy less space than an actual car and therefore the overtaking car won't notice the difference. Also they will be overtaking the group in half the distance.

If the cyclists are single file, it does encourage overtaking where there is not enough space to safely do so according to the rule 163 (as mentioned by Bez). You seem to suggest that when cycling in single file it was easier to pass as you could get closer to the cyclists safer, this is ignoring the Highway Code and most cyclists do not like being passed by cars very closely!

Yes, rule 66 says single file on busy roads but that doesn't mean any road with any car on it, it means busier than normal, otherwise it would have stated only two abreast on quiet roads. On average roads there will be cars which will drive up to a group and need to overtake, this does not make it a busy road and they should wait until they can safely overtake while giving the cyclists the same space as they would a car. If that means they have to wait 30 secs, they should wait.

Avatar
nbrus | 11 years ago
0 likes

 4  36  22

Avatar
nbrus | 11 years ago
0 likes

Time for bed ... good night everyone.  1

Avatar
Forester replied to nbrus | 11 years ago
0 likes

Agreed

Avatar
sihall34 | 11 years ago
0 likes

Well I hope that my explanation of how the Highway Code states that motorists should overtake cyclists safely has settled a lot of the issues which people seem to have about this subject.

I think a lot of the misplaced anger is due to a misunderstanding or lack of knowledge of the rules and therefore hopefully the more people that become aware of them, the safer the roads will be for everyone.

Avatar
nbrus replied to sihall34 | 11 years ago
0 likes
sim1515 wrote:

Well I hope that my explanation of how the Highway Code states that motorists should overtake cyclists safely has settled a lot of the issues which people seem to have about this subject.

I think a lot of the misplaced anger is due to a misunderstanding or lack of knowledge of the rules and therefore hopefully the more people that become aware of them, the safer the roads will be for everyone.

Overtaking is one part of the problem ... any slow moving (relative to other traffic) object out in the middle of a lane is a hazard, regardless of whether it is legal to be there. Besides, if you are in town/city you won't find buses/cars overtaking you on the other side of the road ... there usually isn't room.

Avatar
sihall34 replied to nbrus | 11 years ago
0 likes
nbrus wrote:
sim1515 wrote:

Well I hope that my explanation of how the Highway Code states that motorists should overtake cyclists safely has settled a lot of the issues which people seem to have about this subject.

I think a lot of the misplaced anger is due to a misunderstanding or lack of knowledge of the rules and therefore hopefully the more people that become aware of them, the safer the roads will be for everyone.

Overtaking is one part of the problem ... any slow moving (relative to other traffic) object out in the middle of a lane is a hazard, regardless of whether it is legal to be there. Besides, if you are in town/city you won't find buses/cars overtaking you on the other side of the road ... there usually isn't room.

So you think that because drivers "make mistakes" and can hit cyclists in the middle of the lane because they're going slower, cyclists rights should be restricted to cater for it? I've also seen drivers pull out from side roads when cyclists are clearly on the road, should we also make all cyclists stop for cars pulling out of side roads?

Also, the Direct Gov website has advice for cyclists in regard of their position, it recommends "for a cyclist to ride well clear of the kerb - 1 metre away or in the centre of the left lane" so even when riding in single file you would regard their advice as "hazardous". It seems you know better than they do when it comes to safety but until they change the rules, I'll follow theirs.

Avatar
sihall34 | 11 years ago
0 likes

When riding in busy cities, cyclists are usually the faster vehicle anyway so the cars should wait behind until they have room to overtake safely as the cyclists will probably end up catching them back up.

And if buses/cars don't overtake on the other side of the road, they are not doing so in a safe manner according to the Highway Code, therefore if any accident were to occur, they would be held responsible.

Avatar
nbrus | 11 years ago
0 likes

This thread clearly demonstrates why cyclists and drivers will never get along...  20

Avatar
dave atkinson | 11 years ago
0 likes

i'm a cyclist *and* a driver, and so are most of the people on the forum i expect. i can get along with cyclists just fine when i'm driving. it isn't that hard, really. the view that cyclists need to be restricted because motorists can't find it in themselves to drive safely isn't one i subscribe to.

Avatar
handlebarcam | 11 years ago
0 likes

I'm not a driver, but I do play one on TV. Therefore I can say, without a doubt, that cyclists should only ride in velodromes, and even there keep to the inside sprinters lane, just in case I feel like driving my car around the top, wall-of-death-style. Saying that that would be illegal is missing the point: one day someone will get it into their head to do that, and if you are riding your silly little tarck bikes, wearing your silly spandex, at the same time, well, you've only got yourself to blame.

</sarcasm>

Avatar
nbrus | 11 years ago
0 likes

The law doesn't restrict cyclists from riding up alongside a cement lorry at traffic lights ... do you think that is a good idea?

Avatar
dave atkinson | 11 years ago
0 likes

I don't think intentionally putting yourself in danger on a bike is a good idea, and i don't think legally restricting or blaming the victim is a good idea either

Avatar
nbrus | 11 years ago
0 likes

which is safer ... two cyclists single file alongside a cement lorry, or two abreast?  19 or maybe a whole Peloton?  4

Pages

Latest Comments