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.
156 thoughts on “New Forest sportive riders slammed by motorists for not riding single file”
“New Forest Commoners’
“New Forest Commoners’ Defence Association”
Commoners?
The last time I visited Lyndhurst the only car dealership in the village was Ferrari/Maserati; you can’t get much livestock in the back of them!! Could pull a trailer but I’m not sure whether Ferrari offer a tow hitch as an optional extra. 😕
I suggest an emergency bulk
I suggest an emergency bulk order of Highway Codes be despatched to Brockenhurst immediately.
The problem with The Highway
The problem with The Highway Code is that riding two abreast is permissible ‘on quiet roads’. Last updated in 1950 when such a thing as a ‘quiet road’ existed in the UK.
As a club we protect our right to ride alongside each other – and also single out for drivers as quickly as we can. It seems to work with most motorists apart from the 5% morons. They won’t be happy until they get the road to themselves – but you can’t please everyone!
Hmmmmm. We were in the Forest
Hmmmmm. We were in the Forest on the Gridiron (basically a 100k audax) last weekend. The livestock are completely relaxed about traffic of all kinds, including cyclists. Anyone who says otherwise is lying to try and make a cheap point. Presumably Dr Ferris and his ilk are equally frustrated with the animals, which have absolute right of way and aren’t afraid to exercise it?
If the poor driving we saw
If the poor driving we saw (and one very naughty man will be getting a visit from Plod after being reported by a whole load of people, including a medic attending a crash) was because there were events on successive weekends perhaps these selfish tossers should consider and handing in their car keys and taking anger management classes before someone is killed?
New Forest events always
New Forest events always result in complaints from NIMBYs. They’re never valid either, there’s a 20mph speed limit in the Forest (frequently flouted by drivers) so how on earth you can get too severely held up behind cyclists is beyond me.
The residents have this massive superiority complex about them being “commoners” (ironic that, being all uppity about being a common person); they have a parish council system that dates back to feudal times and they get very precious about some of the laws (about right to graze livestock in particular). Anything that threatens their peaceful idyll, there’ll be letters in the local paper from Angry of New Forest.
I ride in the new Forest
I ride in the new Forest every day and the speed limit is either 30 or 40 mph; don’t know any 20 mph limits. The animals can be very jumpy, especially with cyclists, and there are many horse riders whose competence varies and whose horses often spook at bikes. Riding in ‘club peletons’ is neither safe nor considerate in the Forest, and leaves those of us who defend cycling in the forest without a leg to stand on in the face of the orchestrated opposition of the commoners, who hate cyclists. I think the Wiggle rides will be banned for 2013 and they have only themselves to blame for promoting ‘quiet 20mph roads’ which don’t exist.
Forester wrote:I ride in the
Jumpy animals? Really. The Forest animals are about the least jumpy I can think of, even the ones with foals, calves etc. Same goes for the animals on Dartmoor. They’ll move off the road in their own sweet time, not before.
“Riding in ‘club peletons’ is neither safe nor considerate”
Why? Unsafe for who?
“The Wiggle rides will be banned”
By who and on what grounds? And what about the Gridiron? These are public roads.
As for the commoners who hate cyclists – tough. They don’t own the Forest and they don’t own the roads.
I have seen stampedes of
I have seen stampedes of ponies during the New Forest Ma rathon- another event unpopular with the commoners, and my son left a 2meter line of rubber in the road when a new forest pony jumped out at him on the Orchid Ride. The donkeys and ponies look half dead (and probably are) but you need to give them leeway and hard to see how 30+ club riders can do that in a group, not to mention coping with the cattle grids. Will be doing charity rides and the Round the Isle of Wight Randonee next year, not mixing it with lookalike TdF riders who pick the Forest because they can’t do hills. Was nearly wiped out by a car in the forest yesterday- so not a fuddy duddy!
the speed limit is 40mph
the speed limit is 40mph
The organiser is an idiot.Of
The organiser is an idiot.Of course local residents of a rural area have more right to be there than a huge, totally unsuitable, profit making event. It’s not totally the riders fault. there will be little choice but to ride in bunchs as when you stick huge numbers of anything into a space not made for it there has to be overflow. I am not condemming riding two abreast. I was doing that this morning and on an open road see no issue but on a narrow country lane we singled out to prevent the cars following us at 10/15 mph for 5 miles. Its cvalled consideration!
Big sportives are selfish. Riders often ride like complete morons, overtaking across the line just because the bunch is a touch too slow. Your own pleasure comes after that of other!. Quite possibly some residents over react or fail to be considerate as there are idiots in every walk of life but the attitude of some,not all sportive riders leaves much to be desired. From a non cycling point of view these events can just show how selfish the sport can be.
As usual of course some dimwit has to turn this into some so called political issue, see above. nowt but jealousy.
Its about idiots who can’t respect the country side.
mattsccm wrote:The organiser
If the event was on the PUBLIC highway then the participants have exactly the same RIGHT to use the highway as people who live locally. Highways maintained at public expense are open to everyone, no one has a greater right over their use that anyone else. The law has provisions for use of the highways for sportng events. Do you believe that people with non local number plates should be banned from using the roads through the Forest? If we were to accept your statement then it would be easy to say that drivers have more rights to use the roads than cyclist, and where would that end?
As for the commoners, these are people who, despite the usual use of the word, have a right to graze livestock through land ownership or occasionally ownership of a certain property. Far from being the common people they are a privileged class more likely to be a retired colonel or stock broker than the local mechanic
60-70 animals a year get
60-70 animals a year get killed (and more injured) by DRIVERS every year in the New Forest yet some IDIOTS are more concerned about the imaginary dangers that cyclists pose to the livestock.
It’s not the secret that the NF clique is more into horse riding and golf than dirty and sweaty sports for plebs like cycling.
I live near Dartmoor. Very
I live near Dartmoor. Very similar to the Forest, if rather lumpier. Narrow roads, livestock, locals and tourists. Big rides, like the Dartmoor Classic, don’t seem to attract half the grief that the New Forest rides get.Perhaps because there isn’t the same cadre of self-important moneyed tossers who think they own the place?
maybe, underneath all this,
maybe, underneath all this, there’s an issue lurking.
the glut of sportives and the potential consequences of weekend after weekend of endless slow-moving pelotons on (often unsuitable) roads up and down the country will cause problems with the wider public who share the road and on people’s perceptions of cyclists, especially if participants continue to treat them as a race.
It will also have an increasingly negative effect on the road racing calendar: each race requires licensing from the local constabulary, sportives don’t.
whilst there clearly are benefits to the explosion in sportives – health/fitness/cycling industry – the idea that sportives are some kind of grass roots event is at best, disingenuous.
As both a cyclist and a
As both a cyclist and a driver I am often irritated by cyclists who feel it their right to prevent faster moving traffic from overtaking. Club riders especially cycle in packs and it is virtually impossible to overtake them, as often the pack stretches for 50 or more yards making it very dangerous to overtake as you will be on the wrong side of the road for too long a period without possibility to pull in should oncoming traffic appear. When other traffic approaches, cyclists should move into single file formation, and separate into smaller groups rather than riding in one large pack. Pack riding is only suitable for organised events where there is little to no other traffic present, and in such cases cyclists should still move into single file formation when traffic appears. Cyclists would be just as frustrated if they were stuck behind a pack of trail walkers moving much slower that they are and without any gaps for them to move through. All road users need to be considerate to each other. 🙂
nbrus wrote:As both a cyclist
Thats tantamount to a ban on group riding!? There are very very few roads in this country where you wont get a car coming up behind you at least once every 5 minutes, by the time youve singled out, split up with a 20-30m gap youd have to do it all again. Sure if its a particularly long narrow road but most groups are going at least 15mph which means you reach a passing point eventually, to many car drivers think they NEED to be past, what they NEED to do is show some… er… consideration? (many do… they wait).
STATO wrote:nbrus wrote:As
Group riding’s fine, but riders do have to be considerate about other road users. I did post not so long ago about the group of four riders riding two abreast and holding up a long line of traffic along the secton of the A303 where it is narrow at Stonehenge. I thought the riding inconsiderate, and I say that as a cyclist who was going the other way (in a car but with bikes in the back having been racing with my son) and who wasn’t held up. I’m all for cycling and cyclist’s rights, but it’s a two way thing.
And just don’t get me started on those dimwits who jump red lights and then try and justify it.
mattsccm: I can see your
mattsccm: I can see your point and I agree – some of the riding you see at some Sportives is incredibly selfish/careless/dangerous. But the fact remains that, as Rob Simmonds says, nowhere has the same level of complaints as the New Forest and it’s not me making it political. The locals do that by themselves, have a read of the local paper online to see what I mean.
I’ve done a few sportives,
I’ve done a few sportives, but become a bit sceptical of them. I realised I enjoy myself just as much if I cycle with a local meetup or club, or even on my own. So why the hell am I paying £30+ to ride in a sportive? Worse, the large swarms of riders lead to increased risk.
Stopped doing them. Don’t see the point.
Why do people get so excited
Why do people get so excited by cyclists ‘nearly crashing in to each other’ or cyclists nearly hitting them?
Like most people here I enjoy nearly being hit by motorists every day, it’s called commuting.
I rue the day it isn’t only nearly.
I can kind of see both sides
I can kind of see both sides of this. Sportives can show terrible discipline and there are so many of them now. If organisers (and riders) aren’t careful then yes, the powers that be will step in and regulate (if nothing else by forcing organisers to pay for the cleanup of gel wrappers tossed by, well, tossers).
The “single file” thing can be very misleading. Highway code rule 163 implies that bikes should be given as much room “as a small car”. If the road is 2 cars wide then it should make no difference to a following driver if riders are 1 or two abreast. In fact 2 is better – in our club we try to limit groups to 12 riders. A bunch 6 riders long is clearly easier to overtake safely than a bunch that’s 12 riders long. Saying that, if the road with is 1.5 cars then we single out. If the road width is 2.5 cars and it’s a busy road then we single out. We don’t have to but we do. There are plenty of situations though where to single out would be to encourage a driver to do something dangerous.
I would hope that we wouldn’t ride along the A303 by Stonehenge at all. But let’s face it most of the holdups there (and everywhere else) are not caused by cyclists.
SteppenHerring wrote:I can
The cyclists I saw were riding up a hill and had made the congestion worse. They could’ve ridden single file but didn’t, so overtaking cars had to wait for gaps in oncoming traffic. The lane was wide enough though for overtakes had the cyclists ridden single file. It is a bad area for congestion and they were making it worse.
Some drivers can be very aggressive and impatient though. I’ve noticed when in my car and on my motorbike. Some drivers will tailgate because they want past, even though the road is congested and there is no opportunity for an overtake and no reason to make one anyway as there are so many vehicles on the road.
If you drive at the speed limit, some people want to go faster and don’t seem to appreciate that tailgating won’t cause the driver in front to accelerate. The latest generation of speed cameras can detect when vehicles are driving too close to each other. I have to say, replacing the more basic speed cameras with these more sophisticated units would help detect more instances of bad driving.
Despite driving not being a
Despite driving not being a race, car drivers are constantly seem in a hurry and attempt to overtake each other at every opportunity. Look at yourself driver.
On sportives – don’t bother myself, done one, but can see how they encourage people to ride – something to aim for. If the explosion of them is going to negatively impact the perception of cyclists on the public at large then there could be a good and selfish reason to at least limit the numbers and frequency in some areas.
Near me in the Surrey hills there seems to be one a month – always handy to get a new photo on box hill for free.
I rode the event last weekend
I rode the event last weekend so have first hand experience of what it was like. Firstly, it wasn’t a sportive, but an audax. Secondly, it was very well attended with a range of start times to suit everyone. This enabled groups to be split and provided adequate gaps between them. Thirdly, there were all different types of riders ranging from fast experienced road riders, experienced tourers, less experienced riders, mountain bikers recumbent riders to those who had brushed the dust off their steed after not having ridden it since last year.
On the whole, the standard of riding was fairly high- I’d seen far worse on some club runs I have been on in the past and there were plenty of people making the effort to let cars get past. The standard of driving too was fair in the majority. However, there were some drivers who seemed hell bent on driving as close as they possibly could and some were yelling abuse. I dare say they would have done this whether there was 1 or 100 cyclists on the road.
I think the main issue is the British driver is not used to dealing with slow moving traffic and doesn’t know how to overtake safely. This is not helped by some cyclists who stubbornly stick to riding two abreast. For the most part of this event, though, it was few and far between.
A fuss over nothing.
Quote:Firstly, it wasn’t a
Pedantry for the sake of it. The people complaining don’t know the difference between a club run, an audax, a sportive or a race nor do they care. They’re all “a bunch of bloody cyclists”. As such, they will complain.
There’s a strange shift at the moment in public perception of cycling. If it involves Bradley or Cav then it’s fine, everyone’s happy (witness the huge crowds at this years ToB) but as soon as it’s a local club event or a Sportive, they’ll be moaning about “lycra-clad loons” who “nearly” knock them down. :/
I think even more riders
I think even more riders should participate next year.
Traffic in the new forest has
Traffic in the new forest has been an issue for years, I visited regularly in the 90s. You can’t get through any of the towns without getting stuck on a weekend and you will often get caught behind tractors or HGVs crawling along narrow roads. Cycling events may exacerbate the issue but they are not the cause. A far bigger problem is motorists speeding.
Whilst I can imagine if you’ve spend millions on a house in the New Forest travelling around it can be frustrating, it’s worth noting most of it is run by a government body funded from public taxation.
Having just done the Gridiron
Having just done the Gridiron Audax last Sunday and thoroughly enjoying myself (thank you to all the people involved in the organising and running of this wonderful event) I personnaly can’t say that I saw any cyclists more than two abreast even the pairs singled out on small lanes, what I did encounter was a group of ramblers spread all across the road/lane who took their own sweet time about moving to the side of the road to let a ROAD USER through (two went to the opposite kerb to the rest of the group making the gap between narrower than it needed to be and then tutted as I went past) I used my horn, then bell, then my voice to warn them of my approach (nice gentle words only). I had an unpleasent incident with a silver pick up truck coming towards me and bullying his way past rather than put his near side wheel on the grass verge, and then I came across the accident that Chuffy commented on but was not aware of the commotion caused by the little twerp throwing his toys out of his pram! until I got to the village hall/tea & cake stop later (he threatened a cyclist, then told the ambulance driver to move his vehicle then threatened the ambulance driver when he didn’t get his way used his van as a weapon nearly hitting a group of cyclists by all accounts deliberatly when turning round before speeding off) These are the people we need to REMOVE from OUR roads then everybody can use the roads properly and sensibly
FATBEGGARONABIKE wrote:I had
FBOAB – have sent you an e-mail re: this incident. We’ve reported him to the police and the more witnesses, the better.
FATBEGGARONABIKE wrote:Having
If there is no pavement a rambler is, as you put it, a ROAD USER and has as much right to use the road as a cyclist. That the ramblers not breaking into a synchronised run to get out of your way annoys you shows that you are just as bad as the drivers you criticise. You want car drivers to understand the vulnerability and speed reaction limits of cyclists but don’t seem to be able understand that pedestrians have their own vulnerability and speed reaction limits.
PaulVWatts wrote:That the
Paul I was doing 10mph I used my horn from a distance to give them plenty of time, I didn’t expect them to run to get out of my way but I still had to brake to give them longer than was reasonable I wasn’t annoyed as you say so please don’t put words in my mouth.
CTC Gridiron 100km audax –
CTC Gridiron 100km audax – http://www.wessexctc.org/grdetail.htm
The comments in the article reflect some drivers’ views that, as I was told by a dipshit van driver the other day, “you don’t belong on the roads”. It is a reflection of the impatience and selfishness that is a widespread malaise nowadays, not only to when people are behind the wheel.
It would be much better, and thousands of deaths and injuries would be prevented each year, if everyone on the roads followed the rules. They’re not even that onerous. And whoever said you can only ride two abreast on narrow lanes is incorrect.
Quote:The cyclists I saw were
Note that I’m not defending the actions of the cyclists, but one explanation: cycling uphill exacerbates even tiny differences in speed between riders. A group doing 18mph in neat double lines arrives at a climb and drops to 10mph (for example). But the rider at the back can’t do 10, maybe he wants to do 11 or 12 (and before anyone says “well he should bloody slow down”, consider that he might be on much higher gearing or a fixie). And the rider in the middle can’t do 10mph, he’s actually doing 8mph. So the group fragments, people pull out round each other, give other riders more space and end up blocking the road for a short time. They’ll reform their neat 2-up lines when they’re back on the flat but basically the issue is not really any different to being stuck behind a tractor, or some horseriders. Yet for some reason it’s OK to bully cyclists… 🙁
crazy-legs wrote:Quote:The
None of them were on single speed bikes and from what I saw, they were having a nice old chat and paying no attention to the long tailback of vehicles behind. That stretch of the A303 is bad for congestion and they were making it worse, which is selfish and inconsiderate road use in my book. Riding like that just adds fuel to the fire for the anti-cycling lobby.
Tell you what, lets have
Tell you what, lets have motor vehicles banned from the New Forest at weekends.
Sorted.
An interesting article in the
An interesting article in the new Cyclist magazine about the Tour of Britain technical manager Andy Hawes, who said the roads that are favourites of sunday club riders are not necessarily suitable for a stage of the tour of britain.
I think the same thing can apply here. It can be completely different when a road is taken over by 1000+ cyclists, who are ultimately racing (even though they shouldn’t!)
I agree with the above there are idiots in very walk of life, idiot car drivers and idiot cyclists (I live in London and see plenty of both!)
The cyclists that insist on
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…………….
Brummmie wrote:The cyclists
Maybe they’re ignoring you because they’re concerned you might take issue with their bike/ kit/ ‘designer glasses’.
It should be made an offence
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.
nbrus wrote:It should be made
Exactly, drivers do their bit. BUT we need to do ours as well.
nbrus wrote:It should be made
Hmm, not sure if trolling or just stupid…
How do you propose that this law is to be enforced? Presumably by the same police force that ensure that no motorist ever breaks the speed limit or drives while under the influence/using a mobile/uninsured?
Is it not more dangerous to have one long line of single file than one short line of double file? Single file means you’ve just doubled the distance you need to drive on the opposite side of the road to do a safe overtake.
@crazy-legs:
Hmm, not sure if
@crazy-legs:
Hmm, not sure if you’re stupid…
so you’re saying that speed limits are pointless because the police have a hard time enforcing them?
On a reasonably wide road it is possible to move safely and slowly past single file cyclists even when there is oncoming traffic and if you do find yourself overtaking on the other side of the road, then there is still a possibility to pull in and avoid a collision.
Obviously not the case on a narrow road, but with pack cyclists you have no options but to wait for a very long gap in the traffic with plenty of clear road ahead … a pretty rare occurrence, so traffic simply queues up behind.
You’re obviously of an opinion that you can do as you please because the current law allows it. That’s not helpful at all.
nbrus wrote:
On a reasonably
As I alluded to in my other post, if you are less than 3 feet from the cyclists, then you are not overtaking safely. The cyclists should also be 3ft from the kerb or verge, and have their own width of up to two feet. Would you care to point out where in the UK has single-carriageway lanes that are 7-8 feet wider than a family car?
nbrus wrote:It should be made
What’s the difference between going around a blind corner to find a “slow moving” bunch – I’d add that most club rides and sportive bunches will be doing around 20mph on the flat – and finding a crashed or broken down car, or other obstruction? Answer: None. If the corner is blind, you should travel around it at a speed such that you can stop if there is an unseen obstruction.
Secondly, what’s the difference between a bunch in single file and a bunch in double file? Well, the single file bunch is twice as long. If you want to overtake [i]safely[/i], you should be leaving at least 3-4 feet between the left side of your car and the nearest cyclist. A cyclist is around 20-22″ wide at the shoulders and handlebars, and should be at least 3 feet from the kerb/verge. This means [i]whether the cyclists are double or single file, you should be overtaking by using at least part of the other lane[/i]. A single file group is twice the length, so you will have to go twice as much time and distance while at least partially occupying the other lane. I would therefore conclude that safely and legally overtaking a single-file group is [i]more dangerous[/i] than a safe and legal overtake of a double-file with the same number of people.
Double-file groups also give more opportunity to rotate those working on the front (by chaingang-style rotation), meaning such groups are may be faster and encounter less motorised traffic.
Why, therefore, do you think that riding double file is “not a safe way to ride on the public highway”?
nbrus wrote:… imagine
Drive/ride appropriate to the conditions and consider all road users.
One can dream…
nbrus wrote:It should be made
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.
nbrus wrote:imagine coming
I’m imagining that.
if you’re driving too fast to stop for a group of slow moving cyclists, you’re driving too fast. period.
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’?
Dave Atkinson wrote:nbrus
I’m imagining that.
if you’re driving too fast to stop for a group of slow moving cyclists, you’re driving too fast. period.
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’?— nbrus
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.
nbrus wrote:Oh, and motorists
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.
nbrus wrote:It should be made
Anyone driving a motor vehicle round a bend in such a way as they cannot stop should they encounter something just beyond their vision, be it a car that has broken down, a pedestrian crossing or some cyclists, should be convicted of dangerous driving and have their licence taken away. It is morally tantamount to attempted murder, because they are driving without caring whether they kill someone or not.
Why not? All cars are two abreast (driver and front passenger) and no-one says they shouldn’t be on the roads. Going two-abreast is the natural way for most people to cycle: it is a social activity.
PaulVWatts wrote; “If there
PaulVWatts wrote; “If there is no pavement a rambler is, as you put it, a ROAD USER and has as much right to use the road as a cyclist.”
If the pavement peters out pedestrians/walkers/Ramblers are required by the Highway Code to walk on the right hand side of the road in single file facing the oncoming traffic.
If they are in an organised group, which should apply to Ramblers I suppose, then they should walk on the left hand side of the road and have look-outs posted at the front and rear of the group.
They have no right to sprawl themselves across the road and expect other ROAD USERS to play slalom around them.
If you are going to quote
If you are going to quote the highway code get it right:
If there is no pavement, keep to the right-hand side of the road so that you can see oncoming traffic. You should take extra care and be prepared to walk in single file, especially on narrow roads or in poor light keep close to the side of the road.
It may be safer to cross the road well before a sharp right-hand bend so that oncoming traffic has a better chance of seeing you. Cross back after the bend.
So single file is not required by law. Right hand side of the road? depends on the circumstances on some bends on country lanes the code recognises it would actually be suicidal. Your reaction is just as bad as the I pay road tax brigade. All the person I commented on needed to do was slow down to a speed that allowed the walkers to get out of the way and for him to easily maneuver around them. Just what we cyclists would like most car drivers to do.
In the light of all these
In the light of all these issues, the local region has stopped all racing in the forest except for a couple of short evening events, and then not in mid-summer. This is simply because the forset is an area which has been overtaken by all kinds of recreational events (not just cycling). I think there is a triathlon or two, and what LVRC/TLI do I don’t know. You could say that the mass participation events which are good in that it allows everyone to access the sport, have actually had a bad effect on racing.
This has not just happened in the forest, a race in the south west was cancelled because it clashed with a sportive, and the police having no way of stopping the sportive, revoked permission for the race. Interesting approach, and one which we may find increasing, so where’s road racing going?
perhaps there is a need for some proper co-ordination, and a bit of imagination so that organisers communicate and don’t use the same or very similar routes all the time?
If nothing happens, eventually I can see the time when the government will start legislating, restricting routes, numbers, and all kinds of stuff. Best we put our own house in order first.
@Stewie:
Lets look at the
@Stewie:
Lets look at the reality of the situation…
As a car driver if you come around a corner and find a pair of cyclists in front of you with oncoming traffic you will panic and if you aren’t paying attention you could end up ploughing into those cyclist as there will be nowhere for you to go. Yes, you may very well be at fault, but this won’t affect what may happen to those cyclists. Humans make errors.
When it comes to overtaking, it is possible to slow right down to similar speed as a single file cyclist and carefully move past with much less space than normally required when travelling at speed. You cannot attempt such a manoeuvre when cyclists are two abreast, so traffic will build up behind them. Most cars that overtake me when I’m cycling don’t move fully over to the other lane … how much room they give me is directly proportional to their speed. In the Tour-de-France, cyclists often ride up alongside support vehicles to top up on their hydration. This is pretty safe to do as they are going at the same speed with no sudden movement.
If you are caught in the opposite lane overtaking a pack of cyclists, where do you go? You’re stuck and have to hope that the oncoming traffic can brake before hitting you. If cyclists are in single file, then you can slow down to their speed and move across to the same lane as far as reasonable without causing an accident, hopefully leaving enough room for oncoming traffic to squeeze past. Yes this would be poor judgement when choosing a safe place to overtake, but the reality is that this happens. Humans make mistakes. Cyclists need to account for this when out on the roads.
Cycling two abreast exposes the cyclist to greater risk as well as making it more likely that other road users will take risks in order to get past. This will make accidents more likely … that’s the reality, regardless of whom is to blame. If I was forced to cycle two abreast I’d make sure I was on the inside.
pea brained motorists in
pea brained motorists in thinking they own every road shocker, got news for you, you don’t.
The new forest isn’t the only
The new forest isn’t the only place with livestock on it and is popular with cyclists, and is also used by motorists, so why is it so consistently seen as a problem there?
I remember on the Wicklow 200
I remember on the Wicklow 200 this year, the car in front of me would not pull over to one side and let me pass. In the end, I gave up and thought of Sparticus, went for gold but nearly lost it on the verge overtaking, a scary moment. Coming out of Avoca after those never ending hills(hate them seem to go on forever). After those climbs, I was like a demon and embellished the slopes. Hit a tee junction, travelling way too fast, locked up the back wheel in a controlled slide but no amount of crunching numbers in quantum physics in my mind as my life flashed in front of my eyes would prevent this accident. The female motorist ahead of me was like predictive text,very smart and gave me the right of way(I was totally in the wrong).The Tee junction just came out of the blue and I was on a mission. There was no way I was going to make it even with the back wheel locked up. I love the Shimano RS30s and I know they are bullit proof. Was not really wanting to test them out out with an impact collision. =)) I can laugh now but bless that woman, she saved my ass. Forever grateful! Some motorists are good and some bad I guess. Can not knock them all.
Great comments as always on
Great comments as always on here – honestly cant say anything that hasn’t already been said.
Haven’t done a sportif yet (ex roadie here) and Im on the fence mostly due to the large volume of inexperienced group riding cyclists – having been taken out by one earlier this year I may just stick to solo/club runs..
+1 for any just about any
+1 for any just about any point counter to what Nic is saying.
Are you really saying that close passing is ok because they manage it on the Tour, where the rider in question is in the middle of the road away from any drains and potholes and broken glass, where the road is closed so there is no oncoming traffic that may cause some swerving, and where the vehicle in question is there precisely for the purpose of getting that rider to the end of the race quickly and safely? If you think that’s any sort of analogue to road riding then frankly you’re on crack. If a cyclist is forced into the gutter at 20mph by a car doing 21mph, who by your logic can safely pass within a gnat’s knob of his bars, then that’s not safe. Not remotely.
Anyway, the New Forest. It’s fantastically Nimbyish, I used to ride there a lot (more off-road) and you never felt welcome if you were on a bike. That said, I hate riding in large groups because I know that it irritates drivers, and I know as a driver that most groups don’t do anything (or even think about doing anything) to help anyone get past safely.
Bez wrote:+1 for any just
So you do agree with me…
I particularly love the idea
I particularly love the idea that this causes “anguish”.
HTFU.
The number of clubs in my
The number of clubs in my local area who have started doing “group riding” and “bunch skills” courses indicates that it is an issue.
Unless they can be accused of profiteering in the same way a sportive organiser can be !
I wonder what the traffic
I wonder what the traffic count of cars in the New Forest on Sundays would be.
Every weekday morning and evening the main (and side) roads leading into and around Shrewsbury are chock-a-block with cars.
No-one ever tells them that they should split up, travel in smaller groups, leave work at 15 minute intervals to avoid clumping or anything else to aid the passage of other road users so why should cyclists have to do it?
Simon E wrote:I wonder what
I think you could call that disorganized chaos. Cyclists create organized chaos … they choose to ride in groups.
If it’s a fully (but
If it’s a fully (but narrowish) two lane road (rather than a wide single lane road) riding two abreast should make the riders easier to overtake- there’s often not room for two motor vehicles and a bicycle anyway, so riding two abreast the group is “shorter”, meaning the motor vehicle can spend less time on the “wong” side of the road, surely?
Never ridden a sportive,
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.
@Simon E – “I wonder what the
@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…”
😉 …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.
Nic,
You seem to have a lack
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/.
Quote:It is all very
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.
what i’m saying is changing
what i’m saying is changing the law because car drivers can’t obey the law as it is isn’t the solution.
Is there a solution?
Is there a solution? 🙂
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.
nbrus wrote:Is there a
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
I love cycling, so I don’t
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.
Agreed
Agreed
Nic,
It’s true people make
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.
Highway Code Rule 66:
“You
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.
nbrus wrote:
… “busy” is
really? i always thought busy meant, well. busy.
Highway Code Rule 163:
Give
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.
(No subject)
😀 <:P 😐
Time for bed … good night
Time for bed … good night everyone. 🙂
Well I hope that my
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.
sim1515 wrote:Well I hope
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.
nbrus wrote:sim1515
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.— sim1515
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.
When riding in busy cities,
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.
This thread clearly
This thread clearly demonstrates why cyclists and drivers will never get along… :”(
i’m a cyclist *and* a driver,
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.
I’m not a driver, but I do
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>
The law doesn’t restrict
The law doesn’t restrict cyclists from riding up alongside a cement lorry at traffic lights … do you think that is a good idea?
I don’t think intentionally
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
which is safer … two
which is safer … two cyclists single file alongside a cement lorry, or two abreast? 👿 or maybe a whole Peloton? 😀
What’s the cement lorry got
What’s the cement lorry got to do with anything? To answer your question though, presuming the cement lorry is overtaking them according to the Highway Code, two abreast is safer as the lorry will overtake them in half the distance. If you’re asking about a scenario where the lorry is driving dangerously and is willing to overtake without giving them the appropriate amount of room then I doubt it makes much difference if they’re two abreast or not as the driver is judging the overtaking lane based on the room they are willing to give, so for it to be safer in single file you’d have to assume that the driver would give more space to a single rider.
What do you mean by a whole peloton? Club runs and organised cyclists very rarely cycle more than two abreast so do you mean say 10 cyclists two abreast or in single file? In that case it would definitely be safer riding two abreast, how long will the lorry be on the other side of the road when trying to overtake 10 cyclists in a long line? Probably about double the time if they were two abreast. Plus being two abreast usually forces drivers to overtake in a safe manner.
This is all very clearly explained in my blog which I referred you to above.
I don’t think it’s safe to ride up to a cement lorry at traffic lights on the left even though it’s legal but if a cyclist chooses to do so it’s only their safety they put at risk in reality. When drivers choose to overtake too close, it’s the cyclist’s life they’re playing with.
sim1515 wrote:This is all
Simon, sorry I missed your blog link. I’ve popped across to have a quick read, and to your credit you do advocate common sense on when to single out in order to let cars pass.
I think your assertion on it being quicker to overtake two abreast cyclists is flawed as although the distance to move past two abreast cyclists whilst overtaking is shorter, any vehicle attempting such a manoeuvre would be on the wrong side of the highway for a longer duration as they have farther to move out and further to move back in again once they are past the cyclists. Another factor is that you will already have slowed right down waiting for a safe opportunity to overtake on the opposite lane, as your view ahead will be partially blocked.
Yes, the Highway code may well advise that the correct procedure is to overtake on the opposite lane, but with single file cyclists you could safely overtake by simply straddling the centre line (depending on your speed), making overtaking far quicker and with less exposure to being caught out by oncoming traffic. This would only be possible if the cyclists are willing to keep to the inside while you pass. Is this really so difficult to do? Once traffic has passed, then feel free to continue two abreast again.
On a final note, relating to the main subject of this thread … I would seem the New Forest can be classed as a ‘busy’ road at the weekends, hence according to the Highway code rule 66, cyclists should be riding single file.
My assertion that it’s better
My assertion that it’s better to overtake when two abreast is based on following the Highway Code, if drivers choose to ignore this then they are choosing to put their impatience over the safety of the cyclists. If they follow the Highway Code, which they expect cyclists to do, they will be on the other side of the road regardless of whether try are two abreast or not.
It’s not that it’s difficult to single out, it is just that cyclists do not like to encourage drivers to overtake them without leaving enough space, is following the Highway Code that difficult?
I wasn’t on the ride personally but have ridden in the New Forest while on another Audax and found the roads to be quieter than average. If the cyclists on the ride felt that the roads where busy, then they should have and probably would have singled out but I don’t think that any traffic approaching a group of cyclists makes the road busy.
In most of cases riding two
In most of cases riding two abreast is just a stupid and selfish thing to do and the Highway Code has nothing to do with it.
Most of people DON’T do it for “safety” but for social reasons and because the law say THEY CAN.
The problem is that a busy/narrow road isn’t a place for a chit-chat while holding a line of traffic and antagonising car drivers.
Deflate your egos, stop quoting the regulations like a bunch of council jobsworths and start applying some common sense.
Just because you’re formally “right” doesn’t mean you should be doing it.
P.S. …speaking as a cyclist.
I think most people agree
I think most people agree that cycling two abreast on busy and narrow roads isn’t the correct thing to do and I guess the government agrees which is why the Highway Code states you should single out and that’s what most considerate cyclists do.
On the average road though, it’s absolutely fine to do, it’s not just that we have the right to do it, that it’s more social or we have big egos but also because it’s safer on two fronts, the car is forced to take the proper path round the group and only takes half the time to complete the manoeuvre. These reasons have been cited quite a few times here and elsewhere on the net.
If you disagree and prefer to cycle in single file, that’s your choice but I wouldn’t call choosing to cycle two abreast stupid an selfish on the majority of roads, this is speaking as a driver and a cyclist.
So a slow moving object out
So a slow moving object out in the middle of a road is not a hazard?
Maybe pedestrians should walk on the road, two abreast (where there are no pavements), and force drivers to overtake them on the opposite lane?
Pedestrians are advised to walk against the traffic and keep in to the side.
Relative to a car, the speed of a bicycle isn’t much different to that of a pedestrian. Both are slow, and both are a significant hazard when positioned two abreast on the road.
nbrus wrote:So a slow moving
[[[[[[[[ Oh no they ain’t. A pair of cyclists side-by-side are no more of a hazard than a parked car, or a car turning left, or a slower vehicle you wish to overtake, or a truck, a bus, or anything else getting up your nose because it’s not going fast enough for you. And let’s not equate walkers with cyclists. Walkers are not traffic—-cyclists ARE. And if two riders are as hard to overtake as a car, they must be Oliver Hardy and Fatty Arbuckle.
P.R.
No one said cyclists should
No one said cyclists should be in the middle of the road but yes, cyclists will get in the way of cars from time to time, it’s inevitable. Calling them a “hazard” though is something I disagree with but I guess that’s your opinion, you seem convinced that slow moving cyclists are a hazard, even so much to say that you think it should be made a law that cyclists should single out when there is a car behind.
One of the reasons you have given for this is due to cars going round blind bends and hitting cyclists if they’re riding two abreast, this seems a very unlikely scenario, it would mean that the car would have to be driving round the blind bend fast enough to catch cyclists up that they didn’t see before the bend, the average club run pace on the flat is 20mph, so the driver would have to be driving very fast into and round the corner for this to happen, if this was the case, surely the driver would work out that he’s going too fast for the corner and have slowed down?
Another reason you give is that cars approaching cyclists on normal (non busy) roads when riding two abreast would have to slow down considerably, most of the normal roads we cycle along are 30mph limits, there are some national speed limit roads although they’re usually narrow and therefore we’d be singled out anyway. If we’re going 20+ and the car is going less than 30, the difference isn’t actually that much, certainly a lot less that the gap between cyclists and pedestrians (who normally travel 3-4mph) so I don’t think that comparison works.
Pedestrians are not normal road users and therefore have different rules to that of cars and cyclists which is why they’re advised to walk on the wrong side of the road if there is no pavement (unless there is a blind corner). I think that pedestrian road use is self explanatory so I’m not sure why you’re equating them to cyclists.
Cyclists are advised to be on the correct side of the road and allowed to cycle two abreast if the conditions are normal, but if you do think they are hazards, it’s a good thing that the driving test now includes a hazard perception test, you’d hope that drivers can work out what hazards are and take appropriate actions, either slow down and wait or overtake if there’s nothing coming the other side.
It seems that drivers think they have an obligation to overtake cyclists but this is simply not true, we all have a right to be on the road, no one has more than the other. You don’t hear cyclists complain because cars cause them to have to slow down, wait, and overtake when safe when there is a traffic jam. Just as cyclists will get in drivers’ way, cars will get in cyclists’ way.
@PhilRuss
1. Parked cars are
@PhilRuss
1. Parked cars are a hazard when they take up one half of the road … and you don’t expect to see parked cars out on the open road and if you do they are usually well in to the side and have broken down. The rescue service would put out a hazard warning sign to highlight their presence while stopping to assist.
2. A car turning left is moving out of the way.
3. Any slow moving vehicle (truck, bus, another car) is still way faster than a cyclist and much easier to see.
4. Walkers might not be traffic but they do illustrate the point and would represent a similar hazard as cyclists and are just as difficult to spot.
5. Oliver Hardy and Fatty Arbuckle could always ride a Tandem…
nbrus wrote:@PhilRuss
Parked
I’m interested in your use of the word hazard, do you mean that a car is likely to hit two cyclists riding two abreast as they are a hazard? If so, is is because they cannot see the two cyclists or something else?
If you mean by hazard, they are a nuisance, they are unlikely to hit but may get annoyed when they’re stuck behind, maybe they should develop some patience and perspective and realise that there are other road users than themselves.
There are plenty of bigger vehicles which I’ve overtaken whilst on my bike, milk floats, tractors, horses, cars with horse boxes, all of these go slower than cyclists, take up more room (apart from horses), would you not class these as more hazardous?
sim1515 wrote:
I’m interested
Yes.
nbrus wrote:sim1515
If drivers cannot see two cyclists riding two abreast, I would think they need their eyes tested and probably wouldn’t meet the “Standards of Vision for Driving”, ie that you should be able to read a car number plate from 20 metres away. If you can do that, you should be able to spot 2 (or more) cyclists riding two abreast on the road.
sim1515 wrote:nbrus
Only if you are paying attention…
nbrus wrote:Only if you are
So you’re saying laws should be put in place to change cyclists’ road rights in case drivers aren’t paying attention?
sim1515 wrote:nbrus
Nope, but if it encourages safer cycling, then yes.
@Sim1515
Yes we all have a
@Sim1515
Yes we all have a right to be on the road, please continue to use the roads, but do so without holding up other road users just so you can have a chit-chat with your mate.
When was rule 66 of the highway code written? Were the roads as busy back then as they are now? What might be regarded as ‘normal’ now may well have been seen as a ‘extremely busy’ back then…
nbrus wrote:@Sim1515
Yes we
I love repeating myself, it’s not just to have a “chit-chat”, it’s also to actively encourage cars to pass safely and for them to pass more quickly, I don’t think I can put it any more simply.
sim1515 wrote:nbrus
I love repeating myself, it’s not just to have a “chit-chat”, it’s also to actively encourage cars to pass safely and for them to pass more quickly, I don’t think I can put it any more simply.— nbrus
If you want to encourage cars to pass, then please don’t get in their way.
It isn’t safer forcing cars to overtake two abreast cyclists … on the contrary it is much more dangerous for reasons already mentioned. And they aren’t giving you any more space as the cyclist on the inside (nearest the middle of the road) will be just as close to the overtaking vehicle as a single cyclist would be when being overtaken by a vehicle straddling the centreline … or closer if they are following the highway code … making it more dangerous … for both parties.
nbrus wrote:sim1515
I love repeating myself, it’s not just to have a “chit-chat”, it’s also to actively encourage cars to pass safely and for them to pass more quickly, I don’t think I can put it any more simply.— sim1515
If you want to encourage cars to pass, then please don’t get in their way.
It isn’t safer forcing cars to overtake two abreast cyclists … on the contrary it is much more dangerous for reasons already mentioned. And they aren’t giving you any more space as the cyclist on the inside (nearest the middle of the road) will be just as close to the overtaking vehicle as a single cyclist would be when being overtaken by a vehicle straddling the centreline … or closer if they are following the highway code … making it more dangerous … for both parties.— nbrus
To actually stay out of the way all cyclists would have to stay off the road, which seems a bit extreme.
If you see the picture of the car overtaking the cyclist on the Highway Code website (which I’ve also put on my blog), you’ll see that there is enough room for two cyclists. The point is that they shouldn’t be straddling the middle line, they should be well over the other side, the car in the picture only has it’s left hand wheels on the middle line, not straddling it. By singling out, you encourage cars to do exactly what you say and even worse, some cars don’t even dip their right hand wheels over the line as they don’t think they need to.
Cars should give as much space to us as they do other cars to overtake us safely, anything less and it is not safe. And if they do overtake on the other side of the road as they should, being in two files means they spend half of the amount of time over there. As I said, I love repeating myself.
sim1515 wrote:
Cars should
And cyclists should give cars as much space as they can to assist cars in passing them safely and quickly.
It’s just strange that my
It’s just strange that my statement is out of the Highway Code and one is just your opinion but yes, I firmly believe that cyclists should assist cars in letting them overtake safely, and that is why on normal roads we ride two abreast.
sim1515 wrote:It’s just
Your view of ‘assisting’ cars to pass seems rather at odds with how car drivers view this.
But that is because, just
But that is because, just like you seem to be, they are ignorant of the rules of how to overtake cyclists safely or do not understand what the rule means they should do.
sim1515 wrote:But that is
You know that statement is false as you have already pointed out the rules several times and I can recite them by heart.
You can quote rules as much
You can quote rules as much as you like, but none of your arguments stack up IMHO. 🙂
nbrus wrote:You can quote
They are not so much my arguments as the rules. I’m not trying to say I think cars should give us the same space, it’s a rule. I’m not saying I think the should be on the other side of the road, there’s a picture showing it. I’m not trying to debate how cars should overtake, I’m telling you how the Highway Code says thy should.
So you know cars should
So you know cars should overtake on the other side of the road according to the rules yet you keep mentioning straddling the white line, if the overtake, they should give as much space as they would a car and as the picture they provide on the Highway Code website shows this means only the left hand wheels are touching the middle line. Do you agree with this?
If you do, cycling two abreast if the car is following the rules above would make no difference to the car, the car would not have to take a wider arc as there would still be enough space. Do you agree with this?
If you do, you can work out that they would have to spend around half the time on the other side of the road, do you agree with this?
If the answer is no to any of the statements above, I think our interpretations of the Highway Code differ and we probably won’t agree. I hope by breaking it down I’m making myself clearer as maybe it’s my explanation which is at fault.
I love how the CSS or
I love how the CSS or whatever it is on threads screws up after about 100 posts.
People like Nic obviously carry axes in their glove box, no point winding him up, he’ll either do something he’ll regret.
Or he’ll just keep trolling.
While we’re on the subject of trolling:
I try and explain why drivers
I try and explain why drivers are irritated by cyclists riding two abreast and all I hear back is the highway code being quoted. If you are determined to continue frustrating other road users because the rules give you a means to do so, then you will solve nothing. Drivers and cyclists will continue to infuriate each other.
It should now be clear why I suggested the laws should be changed to prevent two abreast cycling when traffic is present. Cyclists seem oblivious to the hazard that two abreast cycling presents, and are unwilling to compromise on their position because “the rule book says”. Well the rule book doesn’t say that cyclists ‘should’ cycle two abreast and hold up other traffic, it merely allows them to do so if they choose to do so.
Now, where did I put my Axe… :/
nbrus wrote:I try and explain
[[[[[ But, Nbrus, you said earlier that “two cyclists abreast are difficult to spot”. YIKES! Not much chance of you spotting me, then, if I’m riding single-file….
P.R.
Look, you explain your
Look, you explain your opinion on why you think drivers are irritated, I understand your opinion, I just don’t agree with it, I think it is because they do not know or understand the rules which is why I quote them.
If we just take the cycling two abreast out of the equation for a minute, can we try and agree how drivers should overtake according to the rules?
I’ve tried to attached the photo from the gov website (if it hasn’t worked, google Highway Code rule 163). Looking at this, and the text underneath which says “Rule 163: Five vulnerable road users at least as much space as you would a car”, I interpret that to mean that if a driver overtakes a cyclists, they should imagine there was a car there and take the same line around the cyclist and they would do if that car were there instead.
There is no mention of giving less space in traffic, or overtaking closer if there’s no break across the other side of the road, no mention or diagram of straddling the white line, Rule 163 says that if you overtake a cyclist (or other vulnerable road user) you should leave as much room as if there was a car there.
If you’re still of the opinion that drivers can overtake any closer than that, you are breaking this rule. Once you’ve understood this rule, we can then talk about cycling two abreast but if you cannot change your opinion even after being presented with facts then there is little point.
Normally I would say that you’re entitled to your opinion by the way, it’s just in this case it puts the lives of others at risk.
sim1515 wrote:…Rule 163
No disagreement there … but this doesn’t always mean you need to be on the other side of the road … a minimum of 1 meter of clearance would appear to be in line with the photo and is about the same space motorists would leave another vehicle. Obviously, this would depend on the situation, but leave more room if possible.
nbrus wrote:sim1515
It’s clear there is still a disagreement, I don’t think the car needs to be on the other side of the road as large roads mean that giving the same room means only the rigt tyre needs to be over the line, what I’m talking about are average roads which mean the car needs to cross the line.
What we seem to disagree about is this depend on situation thing, the rule doesn’t say that, it simply says leave the space.
Given the rule, do you agree that, no matter what the vehicle, cars should take the same line around it when overtaking?
sim1515 wrote:
What we seem
And two abreast cyclists means that vehicles need an extra 1.5 meters (to the right) to overtake safely…
nbrus wrote:sim1515
You still don’t get it, regardless of what a driver is overtaking, I’m saying that they should take the same line around. Am I not saying it right?
sim1515 wrote:Look, you
There’s nothing to agree, or disagree on … its a simple statement of fact.
nbrus wrote:sim1515
What exactly is your fact and what exactly is the evidence to prove it?
sim1515 wrote:nbrus
The fact is as a motorist I get irritated, and that’s also my evidence … unless you believe I’m telling fibs?
The title of this thread says it all “New Forest sportive riders slammed by motorists for not riding single file”. Is this evidence enough?
Sorry … I think I misread your post … I thought you were saying that you don’t believe that drivers get irritated. :/
nbrus wrote:sim1515
The fact is as a motorist I get irritated, and that’s also my evidence … unless you believe I’m telling fibs?
The title of this thread says it all “New Forest sportive riders slammed by motorists for not riding single file”. Is this evidence enough?
Sorry … I think I misread your post … I thought you were saying that you don’t believe that drivers get irritated. :/— sim1515
Yes, I agree drivers get irritated, I’m saying that in my opinion they are irritated due to lack of knowledge/understanding of how to overtake, and if they knew/understood they wouldn’t be as irate. Your opinion seems to be that they get irritated because cyclists are in the wrong, but this is not fact, it’s your opinion.
sim1515 wrote:nbrus
The fact is as a motorist I get irritated, and that’s also my evidence … unless you believe I’m telling fibs?
The title of this thread says it all “New Forest sportive riders slammed by motorists for not riding single file”. Is this evidence enough?
Sorry … I think I misread your post … I thought you were saying that you don’t believe that drivers get irritated. :/— nbrus
Yes, I agree drivers get irritated, I’m saying that in my opinion they are irritated due to lack of knowledge/understanding of how to overtake, and if they knew/understood they wouldn’t be as irate. Your opinion seems to be that they get irritated because cyclists are in the wrong, but this is not fact, it’s your opinion.— sim1515Its not my opinion either … what I (and others) are saying is that cycling *two abreast* is both selfish and a hazard. It puts both parties at increased risk. This has nothing to do with lack of knowledge, as I feel well educated having read all your posts. 🙂
nbrus wrote:sim1515
The fact is as a motorist I get irritated, and that’s also my evidence … unless you believe I’m telling fibs?
The title of this thread says it all “New Forest sportive riders slammed by motorists for not riding single file”. Is this evidence enough?
Sorry … I think I misread your post … I thought you were saying that you don’t believe that drivers get irritated. :/— sim1515
Yes, I agree drivers get irritated, I’m saying that in my opinion they are irritated due to lack of knowledge/understanding of how to overtake, and if they knew/understood they wouldn’t be as irate. Your opinion seems to be that they get irritated because cyclists are in the wrong, but this is not fact, it’s your opinion.— nbrusIts not my opinion either … what I (and others) are saying is that cycling *two abreast* is both selfish and a hazard. It puts both parties at increased risk. This has nothing to do with lack of knowledge, as I feel well educated having read all your posts. 🙂— sim1515
Nic, I think you still misunderstand, it’s YOUR OPINION that cyclists are selfish and a hazard, not fact. It’s MY OPINION that drivers don’t know how to overtake properly and therefore their perception of cyclists being at fault is wrong.
/slits wrists
/slits wrists
Tell me about it! Maybe a
Tell me about it! Maybe a diagram will help (please forgive my rubbish paint skills).
On the left is a car overtaking a car, on the right is a car overtaking a cyclists. The overtaking car is in the same place for both overtakes, this is what I’ve been trying to explain.
Do you understand the overtaking rule now?
sim1515 wrote:Tell me about
Please don’t rubbish your paint skills … they are much better than mine … probably because of the number of times you have drawn your diagrams. 🙂
From your very own Blog…
Rule 163: “…give motorcyclists, cyclists and horse riders at least as much room as you would when overtaking a car…”
Looking at your diagrams, even I can see that the gap between the cyclist and car on the right diagram is about three times the size of the gap between the two cars in the left diagram? 😕
nbrus wrote:sim1515
Please don’t rubbish your paint skills … they are much better than mine … probably because of the number of times you have drawn your diagrams. 🙂
From your very own Blog…
Rule 163: “…give motorcyclists, cyclists and horse riders at least as much room as you would when overtaking a car…”
Looking at your diagrams, even I can see that the gap between the cyclist and car on the right diagram is about three times the size of the gap between the two cars in the left diagram? 😕— sim1515
I see where our difference of views is, you are still thinking of overtaking in terms of the gap to give the cyclist, if the cyclist is almost touching the kerb, the driver can overtake without crossing the white line.
This is where you misunderstand the rule and picture, what it is saying is what I’ve been saying, regardless of road position, vehicle, size etc, drivers should overtake giving the same space as they would another car. This means that they take the same line around the vehicle they’re overtaking.
To illustrate this I created that diagram which you rightly point out leaves a large gap between the car and the cyclist but this is by design and I think that’s the space cars should give if they’re following the same line.
You may think that this is due to my diagrams not being to scale or me not getting the point properly so I’ve crudely edited the photo from the Gov website to further explain, on the left is the car overtaking another car, obviously it’s the same car but flipped and pasted over the cyclist. The picture on the right is the original, showing where you are meant to overtake a cyclist. Obviously the overtaking car is on the same line, I’m trying to show they could be overtaking a cyclist, a car, a horse etc but it shouldn’t affect the line they take around them.
Do you now understand?
In April of this year I was
In April of this year I was the lucky recipient of a three day cycling break in Mallorca, thanks to road.cc . Yup, its as good as I’ve heard but there quite a bit of signage for cyclists. Mainly to stay single file through twisty or narrow bits. It works. Most of time car drivers (of which I’m one) have the road to themselves and don’t have to navigate around slower vehicles, it happens but is not the norm. Hence,some ill advised and foolish individuals take it upon themselves to crusade against cyclists after an event such as the new forest 100. What it takes is a bit cash, education and thought. How hard could it be ? (yeah right – may be ten years from now). Great ride by the way.
I rode across the New Forest
I rode across the New Forest last Sunday (on my own, although I was participating in a 200km event)
Utterly appalled by the consideration shown to other road users by both pedestrians and car drivers.
At one point a lady of “mature years”, one of a group of ramblers stepped off the grass verge along which they were walking, straight into the road in front of me for no apparent reason and without looking. Evidently relying on hearing any approaching cars? If she’d done it half a second later I’d not have had time to swerve and she’d have got one of my aero bars where it was never supposed to go.
Several ludicrous overtakes (by the usual large German cars) on blind bends, in the face of oncoming traffic (causing it to have to brake sharply), at places where there were ponies close on either side of the road.
In every case it seemed to gain them about 20 metres before coming up behind another car that was driving within the 40 mph limit. Still at least they got past that pesky cyclist.
Frankly if that’s the standard of driving we can expect in the NF then cyclists are safer in large packs which inconvenience other road users.
Having grown up in the New
Having grown up in the New Forest I can attest that most of the people who used to live there – who used to have an understanding of New Forest ponies, badgers, squirrels, pedestrians and all other things non 4×4 – have been squeezed out by the super-rich.
Once I was able to cycle no-handed (No-handed means you can steer, but are slower at braking. Great for cycling. Lethal in traffic)through the quieter country lanes with the knowledge that by the time I heard a car heading my way, my hands would be back on the handlebars.
Nowadays, as I cycle cautiously along with my fingers on the brakes, I fear every corner, as there’s a likelyhood that some git with ‘roo-bars’ will come hurtling round it at 50mph+ – on MY side of the road.
Conclusion?
They paid for the car. They own the road.
The solution:
More Real) tractors, hauling more (Real) silage.
Please refer to Rule 163:
Please refer to Rule 163: “…give motorcyclists, cyclists and horse riders at least as much room as you would when overtaking a car…” The picture on the website is an *example* where the car is giving the cyclist MORE than the minimum space (“at LEAST as much room”) stated in Rule 163. This rule is very clear.
Definition of “space” …
“continuous area or expanse which is free, available, or unoccupied”
nbrus wrote:Please refer to
You are correct, the rule is very clear, you just don’t seem to get it. I assume people like you are the reason they bothered to go out, take a photo and put it on the website to back up the words with an illustration. It’s just a shame that this seems wasted on you too as you interpret that the car is giving the cyclist more than the mininum space rather than accept that the picture is showing you the minimun space.
sim1515 wrote:nbrus
You are correct, the rule is very clear, you just don’t seem to get it. I assume people like you are the reason they bothered to go out, take a photo and put it on the website to back up the words with an illustration. It’s just a shame that this seems wasted on you too as you interpret that the car is giving the cyclist more than the mininum space rather than accept that the picture is showing you the minimun space.— nbrusCan you show me a picture a car giving another car the same *minimum* space as the cyclist in your picture while overtaking safely?
“at least as much room as you would when overtaking a car”
Please READ the caption on that photo … it makes no mention that it shows the *minimum* space … in fact the wording is exactly as stated in rule 163 … please read that rule again. 🙂
No, I can show you a picture
No, I can show you a picture of how the Highway Code says you should overtake cyclists, please see above.
I’m bored with all this
I’m bored with all this tennis…
stealth wrote:I’m bored with
Point taken, I am too. I think I’ve said all I can to show how to overtake safely, if it’s still not enough then I doubt anything else I say will make a difference either.
sim1515 wrote:stealth
I am too…
Please read Rule 163 again … good night. 😉
nbrus wrote:sim1515
I am too…
Please read Rule 163 again … good night. 😉— stealth
Only if you look at the picture to go with it! night.
sim1515 wrote:nbrus
I am too…
Please read Rule 163 again … good night. 😉— sim1515
Only if you look at the picture to go with it! night.— stealth
Only if you paint another picture showing a car overtaking another car with the same minimum space they would give a cyclist. good night. 😉
nbrus wrote:sim1515
I am too…
Please read Rule 163 again … good night. 😉— nbrus
Only if you look at the picture to go with it! night.— sim1515
Only if you paint another picture showing a car overtaking another car with the same minimum space they would give a cyclist. good night. 😉— stealth
Thankfully I don’t have to, the Highway Code provided a pic to show it. night night.
sim1515 wrote:nbrus
I am too…
Please read Rule 163 again … good night. 😉— sim1515
Only if you look at the picture to go with it! night.— nbrus
Only if you paint another picture showing a car overtaking another car with the same minimum space they would give a cyclist. good night. 😉— sim1515
Thankfully I don’t have to, the Highway Code provided a pic to show it. night night.— stealth
I found it…
nbrus wrote:
But the space
We both know that’s not what’s in question. You can keep saying it but I think we all know the rules now, even if you won’d admit them. I’m so bored now though (|:
sim1515 wrote:nbrus
Really? You quote the highway code when it suits you, then you reinterpret it when it doesn’t. :^o
(No subject)
(|: (|: (|:
sim1515 wrote:
good night
good night (|:
Please re-read Rule 163…
I found my Axe … it was in
I found my Axe … it was in the glovebox. 👿
Ultimately, The New Forest is
Ultimately, The New Forest is a national park, and it thrives on tourism, visitors, it has websites encouraging us to visit, walk, drive and cycle around it, camp and caravan in it, and engage in a whole number of leisure activities there. Maybe it’s down to those businesses that need visitors to survive to stick their heads above those who are complaining and acting in a dangerous manner and let the world know whether The New Forest is a good place to visit or not?