A cyclist has posted a video to YouTube showing an argument he and his riding partner had with an Essex Police motorbike officer who pulled them over and insisted they were breaking the law by not riding in single file.
The footage was uploaded to the video-sharing site yesterday by Paul Clayton, who was told by the officer at one point, “You are causing other road users to drive carelessly.”
Essex Police Biker Argues the law with Cyclists by StanCardinalBCLion
Even after consulting a copy of the Highway Code, with it taking him several minutes to find the relevant section, the officer insists that the cyclists are endangering themselves and other road users by riding side by side, and takes down their details.
Rule 66 of the Highway Code says that cyclists “should never ride more than two abreast, and ride in single file on narrow or busy roads and when riding round bends.”
Side by Side from carltonreid on Vimeo.
In August 2015, British Cycling policy advisor Chris Boardman teamed up with driving instructor Blaine Walsh for this video produced by cycling journalist and author Carlton Reid which explains that cyclists are allowed to ride two abreast.
> Video: Chris Boardman explains why cyclists can – and do – ride two abreast
Boardman said: “According to rule 66 in the Highway Code cyclists are advised to never ride more than two abreast. So, three’s out but riding side by side is fine.”
“Think of it like this,” he continued. “In your car, you have the driver’s seat and the passenger seat, that makes a car suitable for two people to travel next to each other. Cyclists riding next to each other are doing the same thing, maybe chatting just like you would do in a car.”
As we reported at the weekend, Derbyshire Police recently published road safety advice regarding cyclists and aimed at both people on bikes and, primarily, drivers of motor vehicles.
> Derbyshire Police launch website explaining how to drive around cyclists
On the subject of cyclists riding two abreast, the force said: “It may come as a surprise to most drivers but cyclists have as much right as drivers to take up the entire lane.
“You will often see cyclists riding side-by-side, and you, as a driver, may think they’re being selfish by doing so.
“But the fact is the cyclist is actually reducing the risk of having an accident; it’s the safest way for them to cycle, particularly if there’s a blind bend, a narrowing of the road, a high risk junction, pinch point or traffic lights ahead.”
NB This story was amended at 2.50pm on 15 May 2017 to reflect that the video on YouTube has been made private.
79 thoughts on “Video: Essex motorbike cop tells cyclists they mustn’t ride two abreast – even after he consults Highway Code, which says they can”
What I just realised, like
What I just realised, like literally this moment, is that using clickbait videos that stir offense without actually being an organisation that does activism, is really a bit offensive itself. It’s basically profiteering off of misery, misfortune and death.
Huh. Weird I never saw it that clearly before. Guess I’m not as sharp as I think I am. Enough for me, this place has some great characters and dualists on it, but it’s not right to keep baiting them like this for cash. You can’t even argue that these pieces are raising awareness – the site has no outreach, it’s a circle-jerk.
/flounce
unconstituted wrote:
So you’ve been here that long and made that many posts and you’ve been using the internet for that many decades…. and you only just realised how the universe works.
unconstituted wrote:
Yeah, it is a bit insidious, but it has raised my awareness of how uneducated this roads police officer is on policing the roads 🙁
As a biker, I cannot fathom how he doesn’t know better?!
ChrisB200SX wrote:
There’s definitely a risk of this site simply preaching to the converted.
However – as someone who lives in Essex I have ‘skin in the game’. If anyone else would like Essex Police to investigate and perhaps explain themselves, there’s nothing to stop people tweeting relevant accounts such as @essexpolice , @essexpcc , @saferessexroads , @EPRoadsPolicing , etc and asking polite questions…
unconstituted wrote:
I disagree. I’ve been cycling daily since the 1960s, I have a reasonble level of respect for traffic officers doing a dangerous job with limited resources but I am shocked at this officer’s lack of knowledge.
If this is indicative of the training taking place for advanced and professional road users, we have a massive battle on our hands.
This has raised my awareness.
Not so, I always make that
Not so, I always make that gibe, though light-heartedly, if you could trawl my post count you would see that. but I never realised how offensive the situation really is, until now.
Do you see the distinction there? If not it’s okay.
Nice snipe though. I like a good snipe myself.
Anyway, I’ve had my say, don’t want to upset pete76. He doesn’t like it when you criticise this place. It’s ‘bad manners’
“Making other road users
“Making other road users drive carelessly”
How does that work then? Direct mind control over the motorist themselves or some sort of cyclist specific neural interface to the other road user’s vehicle controls?
Whats the music about?
Whats the music about?
It’s rather sad that when
It’s rather sad that when there are so few traffic offiers around these days, you get some who don’t even understand the law. If I was the cyclists I’d be every bit as pissed off at them and credit to them for not getting really angry about a traffic stop they endured for not breaking the law. I hope they complain directly to the senior officer involved and ask for an apology and also further explanation of the law to the officer involved.
I this ever happens to me, I
I this ever happens to me, I’ll simply ask “am I being detained?”, when the officer answers no, I’ll just pedal off.
To paraphrase the Simpsons –
To paraphrase the Simpsons –
Ned Flanders “hey, you aren’t allowed to ride two abreast”
Homer Simpson ” we aren’t riding to a breast, we are riding to a lake”
What a chopper!
What a chopper!
Lol. Holding up trafic and a
Lol. Holding up trafic and a queue behind them. Just watch the 1st 20 sec of the video and that will somewhat prove that copper just started making things up when he proved himself wrong.
Competancy training awaits hopefully. We need the laws enforced not prejudice.
The look on the traffic
The look on the traffic officer’s face when he opens that highway code and finds out he is wrong!
It’s disturbing that even
It’s disturbing that even when he is literally stood reading the relevant section in the Highway Code out loud, the copper still doesn’t understand it. Looking at the road, there is no sensible way to consider it within the “ride in single file” part of the Highway Code.
The cyclist is, in my personal view, a bit too in the copper’s face pretty much from the start – but then I wasn’t the one stopped for no reason at all with someone that should be keeping you safe, but who is instead talking absolute rubbish that strongly suggests they have no understanding of cycling & road safety issues.
What I find weird is the particular place that they were stopped – in the space leading up to the traffic island, with what looks like a much longer, clear section of road just the other side. They’ve then parked an unmarked car behind the cyclist, causing all the other traffic to pull out and then straight back in again for the traffic island. That kind of undermines the whole “you’re causing other drivers to drive carelessly” nonsense to me. (as if it wasn’t clearly a ridiculous comment in the first place…)
Edit: is the copper equating “busy” with fast/60mph speed limit? But in any event, it’s a should, not must.
gw42 wrote:
I know I’m massively selectively quoting you there, and I totally agree with the rest of your posts, but I think right from the start he marks himself out as an officious prick. Gets off, wagging finger straight away.
Then it just goes downhill as he shows himself to be the best kind of officious prick – a stupid one. Yay. The cop wants them off the road, really, and I doubt I’d be willingly riding along that one, but their arguments are spot on, and his are non-existent.
gw42 wrote:
I disagree, even though you qualify the above pretty fairly.
Even though these guys were completely in the right and were able to cycle off afterwards instead of paying a fine, they’ve: 1) lost momentum; 2) had to talk to a thick f**k; 3) probably been upset by having this argument with someone that is paid to know better.
If an officer entrusted with respect, authority and force is reckless enough to physically impede other people from going about their lawful business then there needs to a lot more “in your face” for a busybody ignoramus.
All that said, what the eff is the horrible music playing, and what a horrible road to ride on: time to crank up the price of petrol to its real cost to remove all those road abusers.
gw42 wrote:
Absolutely, it is an up to 60mph when safe road is what I think he must have meant!
[quote} “You are causing
never correct what is happening is drivers are [b]choosing[/b] to drive dangerously because they lack patience
You mustn’t wear that pretty
You mustn’t wear that pretty frock, you’re causing other chaps to go all rapey.
I’m so glad to see that our
I’m so glad to see that our tax money goes to good use. I can only imagine what an idyllic place Essex must be where the only thing that the traffic police can find to do is to chastise cyclists for daring to cycle side by side. Here in Bristol, we have drivers jumping red lights at pretty much every intersection when the lights go from amber to red. We’ve also got plenty of speeders, but that might be something to do with our 20mph limit around the centre.
I wish I lived somewhere that was had such law-abiding citizens that the police don’t even know their way around the Highway Code.
I used to get letters to from
I used to get letters to from the public about cyclists in my club when we cycled two abreast or didn’t use a shared use cyclepath when riding. I used to write to each of them giving the guidance from the highway code and the relevant information on minimum standards required for cycle paths from the Department of Transport.
As this video demonstrates, it’s a sad reflection of our times that all road users are not aware of the Highway Code. Shame.
I’m not sure that the motorcyclist in this short video was left with any clearer idea of the guidance in the Highway Code, but they seemed to share contact details so maybe if the two cyclists contacted the local police they might be able to reach out to the motorcyclist in question and send a local “bobbie” round to show him the relevant sections and explain the meaning. It’s quite clear. I’d hate for the road user to be unclear about the law.
I suspect the car driver who stopped behind may have understood the matter as he kept well away from the melee.
Video – http://www
Video – http://www.dailymotion.com/video/x5md0et_essex-police-biker-argues-the-law-with-cyclists_fun
SCBCL wrote:
Category : Comedy & Entertainment
Are we living in ignorance?
Are we living in ignorance?
Just watched the whole thing.
Just watched the whole thing. Ha, ha, good on the cyclists. The guy obviously has a chip on his shoulder about cyclists and just ended up making himself look like an officious prat.
Regardless of the coppers
Regardless of the coppers lack of knowledge his main view was their safety, cars will be going 70 on a 60, this isn’t safe for cycling two a breast on a single lane road, single file with a good rear LED would be better, appreciate the law allows otherwise, just my opinion.
Looks like another typical road with poor cycling design.
808999 wrote:
When drivers are presented with a clear lane with one or two cyclists in single file will rarely scrub off speed if they think they can get by without moving over to the other lane. When confronted with no option(2 abreast) but to slow down and assess when they have to move into the other carriageway either partially or fully. The driver has to come out of autopilot mode and think
A motorcyclist giving safety
A motorcyclist giving safety advise lol.
its only a matter of time before he rides that thing into a tree or a wall or a building.
Housecathst wrote:
Maybe it was this guy from last week 😀
https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/3522561/police-motorcyclist-royal-car-thrown-over-his-handlebars-after-losing-control-waterloo-bridge/
The police officer is an
The police officer is an idiot, he couldn’t have chosen a more inapropriate place to pull them over. Even when he managed to find Rule 66 of the highway code, I still dont think he fully grasped the concept that there needs to be at least 3 cyclists to ride more that 2 abreast.
Sadly, the video is no longer
Sadly, the video is no longer available for viewing, but I have to say that in my opinion cycling two-abreast is not safer, but poses an increased risk to the cyclist farthest out and also to vehicles approaching from either direction but particularly from behind.
The only time cycling two-abreast is safer is on group rides as it makes it easier for vehcles to overtake, but the bunches also need to be spread out to accomodate this.
In my view the policeman was correct in recognising that the situation posed a hazard even though whether or not it was legal comes down to how you interpret the word ‘busy’ in the highway code “should … ride in single file on narrow or busy roads..”.
In my view a busy road would be any road where there are other vehicles present, so move to single file when a vehicle approaches from behind, then move back out after it has passed. This seems like a good practice to me and is how I ride. Ride two-abreast and its only a matter of time before it results in an accident, or you meet a road-rage nutter who decides to run you off the road.
nbrus wrote:
You must spend your entire journey looking backwards.
I always feel safer in a bunch 2 abreast, cars slow down and wait for space instead of taking premature risks for an early overtake.
CXR94Di2 wrote:
Actually, I use a mirror … they are available to fit any type of bicycle and I wouldn’t cycle without one as I wobble when I look backwards. It also allows me to take evasive action if I think an approaching vehicle hasn’t noticed me … I’ve only had to do so once, but I also witnessed another cyclist almost being moed down by a dozzy driver that wasn’t paying attention (I was driving behind that vehicle at the time). The only reason the cylist survived was because he was cycling close to the edge of the road and there was just enough room for the car to pass while staying in the lane. He got a fright he’ll never forget. This was on a straight road in broad daylight and the cyclist was clearly visible … the driver was simply not paying attention. Mirrors are the best upgrade I’ve ever made.
nbrus wrote:
…and they come in handy for checking that you’ve got plenty of forehead showing underneath the brim of your helmet, your stabilisers haven’t fallen off and your ten foot high flag is still attached.
</joking>
nbrus wrote:
It’s quite possible the driver overtook so closely precisely BECAUSE the cyclist was stuck to the edge of the road. Personally I do it on the 50mph stretch of my commute because I’d rather stay sa far out of the way as possible and rarely get a close pass, but it definitely encourages drivers to overtake within the lane.
choddo wrote:
That is indeed a possibility, but I was watching and it looked more to me like the driver didn’t notice the cyclist … I say this because the driver didn’t slow down or change position at all and only missed the cyclist by a couple of feet at most and there was no oncoming traffic so the other lane was clear (it was a Sunday afternoon). Here’s where it happened…
https://www.google.co.uk/maps/@55.8105807,-2.9842586,3a,75y,324.42h,94.28t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1shvDWc_uZBn-pHj3DsC_4TA!2e0!7i13312!8i6656
Sometimes drivers can go into autopilot and loose focus, particulary if they are tired … they are not expecting to see cyclists so only react to other vehicles … much like when cars pull out from junctions when a cyclist is passing as their brain failed to register that there was a bike approaching. I don’t really know the answer, but I always use a mirror to keep an eye out for drivers that may not be paying attention so that I can take action if they fail to notice me.
nbrus wrote:
sounds like any bog standard overtake most motorists give cyclists, a miss is as good as mile in their view, why would they move over if they think they can get past you without doing anything, youve got to remember on most dual carriageways/motorways cars are overtaking cars,coaches,trucks at speeds of at least 70mph with mere inches between them, sometimes its just the width of the lane marking seperating them, the idea that as a car you should give a cyclist more room than a comparable overtake of a car becomes a complete anathema to them, because they dont understand that simply not hitting you isnt enough because they dont have experience of what that feels like
nbrus wrote:
When I’m on a narrow lane, I’ll ride well out into the road. That way cars MUST slow down before they get to me, so I control the pass. That’s taking the lane.
video is here:http://www
video is here:
http://www.dailymotion.com/video/x5md0et_essex-police-biker-argues-the-law-with-cyclists_fun
Now that the police are
Now that the police are accepting video evidence for close passses for prosecution of motorists, I would forward this video to the police as a complaint and demand action is taken; making it clear it would be escalated to IPCC if need be. I would also copy to the All Party Parliamentary Group for cycling.
This institutional failure, change cyclist, for race, religion…it is unacceptable and this sort of evidence should be used to kick the police up the arse.
What a complete numpty the
What a complete numpty the police officer was with his ignorance of the highway code.
When on club rides we ride two abreast down main roads, its safer for us and easier for driver to pass(shorter distance of pack).
I shall send this to my friends who drive to demonstrate what idiots we have in the police force. His postion was the cyclists were getting in the way, couldnt find a suitable section to pin on the fellas so got high and mighty taking details.
YouTube direct link. https://youtu.be/kbmWRBtkKuM
CXR94Di2 wrote:
Amusingly, if he’d really wanted to be a jobsworth about it, he could simply have checked their pedals for reflectors. I’d be willing to bet they didn’t have any (and neither do I).
jollygoodvelo wrote:
I think lighting regulations for pushbikes only apply from sunset to sunrise (not sunset+30 min, sunrise-30 min, plus inclement weather – as it does for motor vehicles). So he doesn’t even get that. Though, how busy does a busy road need to be? Another well-written law!
jollygoodvelo wrote:
Amusingly, if he’d really wanted to be a jobsworth about it, he could simply have checked their pedals for reflectors. I’d be willing to bet they didn’t have any (and neither do I).— CXR94Di2
Don’t need pedal reflectors or other reflectors in daylight hours
jollygoodvelo wrote:
Well, officer, you now know about the daylight thing.
I didn’t see the video before it was pulled, but if their bikes were as old as my tourer – I doubt it, but anyway – they wouldn’t have needed pedal reflectors even at night.
Further off topic, I know, but from Chris Juden’s guide to cycle lighting – and specically Exceptions and explanations:
(I have pedal reflectors on the SPD-SLs fitted to my ‘winter’ bike, incidentally. )
Full article.
jollygoodvelo wrote:
Amusingly, if he’d really wanted to be a jobsworth about it, he could simply have checked their pedals for reflectors. I’d be willing to bet they didn’t have any (and neither do I).— CXR94Di2
only after sunset…
Amusingly, if he’d really wanted to be a jobsworth about it, he could simply have checked their pedals for reflectors. I’d be willing to bet they didn’t have any (and neither do I).
[/quote]
They aren’t necessary during daylight hours.
Now if the officer had really
Now if the officer had really cared about their safety shouldn’t he have pulled them over in a safer spot, as was said earlier.
And shouldn’t he have also been behind them when pulled over, giving them all the safety of his flashing blue lights, and general policeyness (I know Bez has showed a shot of a rear ended patrol car that shows even this sometimes doesn’t help) . I’ve been watching a bit of police interceptors recently, Ch5 seem to have it on a loop on their other channels, a bit like Dave did with QI or Top Gear, and when a car pulls someone over they never go in front, not as a single car anyhow, and I don’t think a TPAC would have been justified in this instance.
As mentioned previously (and
As mentioned previously (and generally overlooked by most subsequent posts), rule 66 states that we should ride in single file on busy roads and when going around corners. If this video is a quiet road then the police officer is wrong and if it’s busy then he is right.
WiznaeMe wrote:
Define “busy” (one of the other comments on here said “whenever there are any cars”, which is plainly ludicrous).
brooksby wrote:
Actually, I don’t think it is ludicrous … the highway code was first published in 1931 … how many cars do you think were on the road back then? If the highway code had stated that cyclists should ‘never’ ride two-abreast, you would be committing an offense even on an otherwise deserted road and that is clearly silly, so instead it says to ride single file on ‘busy’ roads. I think the definition of what constitutes a ‘busy’ road is what has become blurred through the years. A busy road in the 1930s…
nbrus wrote:
First published in 1931, and been revised several times since then – most recently in March this year, and four updates last year. The HC isn’t stuck in some between the wars utopia, the 1970s maybe (I’ve not seen an over the shoulder yellow reflector belt jobbie since then).
Riding three abreast is not of itself illegal either. Rule 66 is a SHOULD not a MUST, so is guidance not law. You could potentially be considered to be breaking some other law by doing so, but that would depend on circumstances.
nbrus wrote:
I completely agree! On a similar note, I am freaked out by the fact that this document that was created in 1931 (and certainly never adapted since) mentions Zebra Crossings (Rule 195 for example) when they did not even exist until 1949! It must use some kind of magic
ClubSmed wrote:
Yes, it is fortunate for Willo…er…bikelikebike…er…nbrus’s…argument that the document has in no way been regularly revised, and that has been frozen in aspic since its 1931 inception.
FluffyKittenofTindalos wrote:
I completely agree! On a similar note, I am freaked out by the fact that this document that was created in 1931 (and certainly never adapted since) mentions Zebra Crossings (Rule 195 for example) when they did not even exist until 1949! It must use some kind of magic
— brooksby Yes, it is fortunate for Willo…er…bikelikebike…er…nbrus’s…argument that the document has in no way been regularly revised, and that has been frozen in aspic since its 1931 inception.— WiznaeMe
Just for kicks I went looking for a copy of the 1931 HC frozen in aspic and found one ( https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Page%3AThe_Highway_Code_1931.djvu/14 ). No mention of “busy” in the riding two abreast rule, so what constitutes a busy road in the 1930s is irrelevant.
The entire text of the HC 1931 edition is here:
https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/The_Highway_Code_(1931)
CygnusX1 wrote:
Oh you and your facts! Spoiling a good, old-fashioned exchange of prejudices, assumptions and speculation.
Ush wrote:
Why did I read your reply in Professor Farnsworth’s voice?
CygnusX1 wrote:
Here is a quote from that first link…
“Make the passage of other traffic wishing to overtake you easier by moving into single file except on very broad roads.”
Seems to imply that cyclists should never cycle two-abreast when other traffic is present unless the road is wide enough to allow it. That was pretty clear, so not sure why the wording was changed as it isn’t as clear now, but if the intent is the same then the new wording does seem to imply that a ‘busy’ road is one where other traffic is present.
On another note, I’ve just come back from a bike ride with a friend and I was riding two-abreast for a short time to talk to him … I got the horn blared at me by some irate ignoramus in a car behind me who then shouted “single file” out the window as he overtook when we passed a restriction point on the road. He couldn’t have overtook us even in single file so I don’t know what his problem was. I don’t normally cycle two-abreast, but did briefly today.
nbrus wrote:
bet the upset driver was two abreast with his invisible chum. 1 driver takes up almost exactly the same space as 4 cyclists riding 2 by 2. Who is hogging the road really?
nbrus wrote:
Well, at least he saw you, and being two abreast made it impossible even to try to overtake. Which is why we do it on narrow roads when overtaking would be dangerous.
It’s been a funny day: the
It’s been a funny day: the tories going against everything they’ve done over the past 50 years by saying that they will give more rights to workers instead of taking them away, and now a traffic policeman who doesn’t know the Highway Code or the law. Why exactly is he a traffic cop? Perhaps a lengthy stint directing traffic might encourage him not to stop law-abiding cyclists, and to consider his competence for the job, if his boss hasn’t already.
Perhaps tomorrow might be a little less bizarre.
Actually, I use a mirror…..
Actually, I use a mirror……
yeah, this explains a lot
It’s almost as if plod ain’t
It’s almost as if plod ain’t aware that stuff gets filmed these days. What a tool.
The cyclists might have read
The cyclists might have read the highway code, but they don’t know the first law of authority: 1) authority never backs down.
Good on them for not being cowed by this silly sod though! Resorting to the “take your details” intimidation tactic to try to win a lost argument was particularly pathetic! The copper is old enough to know better but I suspect a long career of being pushy with the public in a position of authority has taught him the bullying blustering habit.
I’d have found it hard not to just say sorry and take his lecture.
I would suggest that Essex
I would suggest that Essex Police remove this Officer from his role on the Road Policing Unit and get him back to mundane duties. As a member of the RPU I would expect him to have a good knowledge of road traffic law & the Highway Code. I would also expect as a Motorcyclist to understand why vulnerable road users position themselves as they do.
Also his attitude stinks, however the attitude of the cyclists and their comments don’t help.
Zebra’s didn’t exist before
Zebra’s didn’t exist before 1949 – hold the front page!
When passing or overtaking
When passing or overtaking pedestrians, cyclists or animals give them plenty of room
HC 1931 edition.
Plenty, whilst still open to interpretation sounds better in some way.
Previous sarcastic comment
Previous sarcastic comment about mind control over motorists aside:
I can sort of see where the officer is coming from. I think we should recognise the fact that he has almost certainly attended many road traffic incidents, seen mangled victims and dealt with situations that are exceedingly distressing, maybe even had to visit relatives of deceased to break the news, so personally I’m always prepared to give the emergency service personnel a big measure of respect. Police motorcyclists are highly trained and I can assure you will outride pretty much any wannabe TT racer out there, effortlessly.
The problem for this officer is that he is not a cyclist. He can see a situation that rings wrong from his experience, enough to take action, but the Highway Code and the Road Traffic Act applicable to the sections concerning cyclists do not back up his gut instinct that the cyclists are putting themselves in danger. The cyclists have done nothing wrong, even if you drill down to the pertinent sections of the road traffic act the test becomes “falls far below the standard expected of a competent and responsible cyclist” or similar wording. I consider British Cycling , Chris Boardman etc to fulfil that role and they say 2 abreast is safer.
Personally, and mostly because I’m generally working too hard to chat, I’d have been single file if riding with a buddy at that point, looking to get off that road and somewhere more interesting as soon as possible. If in a group of 4 or more then double up would be better, but that is just my opinion. Both options are acceptable, both options have pros and cons from the safety aspect, both options are entirely legal and appropriate.
Probably just unfortunate choice of phrasing, but if the Officer is genuinely seeing motorists driving carelessly around the cyclists then he should be directing his attention to that and not to the cyclists who were doing nothing wrong.
Mungecrundle wrote:
I can sort of see it too. But that actually makes it worse. It reminds me of people who, when hearing that you’re going to cycle home from $SOCIAL_OCCASION express their concern as to whether you will be alright. Meanwhile they jump into their high-kinetic-energy-vehicle for which they barely passed the test. In other words, at absolute best, the officer is being a patronizing git. And that’s giving him a massive benefit of the doubt.
Are they though? This video suggests that the training has not stuck with at least this one: not knowing the Highway Code when your job is riding around and interpreting it is a huge problem.
Of course some vehicles are
Of course some vehicles are three and four abreast. There is in fact no upper limit on how many abreast you can ride as cyclists, as long as you aren’t blocking the road. For example there’s a section of what was the M10 that could easily manage four abreast, without even using a whole lane – https://goo.gl/maps/Tt9q6Cw2K9u
I got a bit bored – I didn’t
I got a bit bored – I didn’t know whether to side with the guy whose cadence was 15 all the way through that conversation, or the policeman who couldn’t get a word in edgeways with Mr Cocky.*
*I know that cyclists can ride two abreast.
Whilst mr cocky was
Whilst mr cocky was irritating, it’s worrying that the policeman couldn’t grasp the simple phrase “more than two abreast”. I mean, seriously.
kitsunegari wrote:
Are you able to grasp the simple phrase “ride in single file on narrow or busy roads”. I mean seriously.
nbrus wrote:
I know I am.
Define ‘busy’, please. And try not to refer to the 1930s this time.
davel wrote:
If you’d like to present your argument for why the ‘intent’ may have changed, then please do.
You didn’t define ‘busy’, did
You didn’t define ‘busy’, did you?
Define ‘other traffic’ being ‘present’. Is that 3 other cars within 100m, say? Is it when a Ford Model T could reasonably be expected to feature in the same black-and-white photograph as you on your bike?
In other words: Fuck Off, Willo.
davel wrote:
Have a nice evening Dave … no need to get annoyed … at least you made me laugh, thanks. This does highlight how difficult it is to write traffic regulations so they can’t be misinterpreted.
I’m used to ordinary cops all
I’m used to ordinary cops all hating people on bikes. But a bike cops hating people on bikes… That’s a new one.