Support road.cc

Like this site? Help us to make it better.

Fleet Street fury over campaigners' calls to clarify ‘two abreast’ cycling rule

Broadsheets fire broadsides at appeal for clarification of Highway Code wording as consultation closes

Columns ​in The Times and the Daily Telegraph are both peddling anti-pedalling rhetoric following calls from cycling campaigners to clarify rules regarding cyclists riding two abreast as part of a consultation, which closes at midnight today, into proposed changes by the government to the Highway Code.

I can’t keep abreast of what cyclists want is the headline of a column in The Times written by Sara Tor, while Telegraph motoring correspondent Paul Hudson’s article is titled, The moral superiority of cyclists has to stop.

> Why do cyclists ride two abreast?

In both cases, the principal object of their ire is the call by campaigners for the wording of Highway Code Rule 66, which currently reads, “You should never ride more than two abreast, and ride in single file on narrow or busy roads and when riding round bends,” to be clarified.

The Department for Transport (DfT) has proposed amending the rule to read that cyclists should “ride in single file when drivers wish to overtake and it is safe to let them do so. When riding in larger groups on narrow lanes, it is sometimes safer to ride two abreast.”

Both British Cycling and Cycling UK believe that the revised wording remains ambiguous and liaised with one another before formulating their own responses, which have minor differences between them but essentially seek to clarify the issue.

> Riding two abreast: Sarah Storey calls for Highway Code to be clearer

Both underline that riding two abreast is, at the moment, perfectly legal, but are calling upon the government to make the wording clearer in the interests of making the roads safer for all who use them, including motorists (as many videos in our Near Miss of the Day series attest, motorists overtaking cyclists when there are vehicles approaching from the other direction is a regular hazard that puts all parties at risk).

British Cycling proposed wording of Rule 66

You should be considerate of the needs of other road users when riding in small or large groups. You can ride two abreast and it is often safer to do so, particularly in larger groups or when accompanying children or less experienced riders. Be aware of drivers behind you, allowing them to overtake (e.g. by moving into single file) when you feel it is safe to let them do so.

Cycling UK proposed wording of Rule 66

[Cyclists should] be considerate of the needs of other road users when riding with another and in small or large groups. You can ride two abreast and it is often safer to do so, particularly in larger groups or when accompanying children or less experienced riders. Switch to single file if you consider it safer to allow drivers to overtake.

In The Times, Tor accuses cyclists of “stamping their feet in an effort to get the highway code reworded” and, quoting Cycling UK’s suggested wording, adds “The proposal is actually being taken seriously and I’m astonished.”

Over at the Telegraph, Hudson insists he is approaching the issue from the point of view as “the viewpoint of keen cyclist and car driver” – although references to “apparently ‘road hogging’ cyclists,” “Lycra-clad” idiots and a “seemingly unwritten rule that the majority of cycling apparel is unremittingly black” suggests he is hardly sitting on the fence (or should that be saddle?).

“Of course, riding two abreast gives a brace of cyclists greater visibility,” he writes. “The proposals suggest that riding alongside instead of single file is the safest way to proceed unless it's considered safer to revert to line astern to allow drivers to overtake.

“However, that argument fails to take into account the moral superiority of many cyclists, who seem to view anyone in a car as violating their inalienable right to proceed in any manner that they see fit, with apparently little regard for other road users.”

He acknowledges the increased vulnerability of someone on a bike compared to “a person seated in a motorised tin box,” but adds that his “main concern is that such regulations will serve to further widen the divide between cyclists and drivers when we should all attempt to understand that we have an equal right to use the Queen's highway.”

His solution is that road users employ “common sense” and “consideration for others” – although, you don’t have to be a keen student of legal history to understand that failure to demonstrate either of those plays a large part in how the law, in its broadest sense, has evolved over the past few thousand years.

A more reasoned and balanced approach was given yesterday by Guardian journalist Peter Walker, speaking to LBC’s Nick Ferrari – a broadcaster not noted for his support of people who use bikes to get around (who are more likely than not to also hold driving licences, something that is often missed or ignored in mainstream media coverage of cyclists).

https://www.lbc.co.uk/news/drivers-urged-to-be-aware-that-cyclists-are-a...

Walker underlined that neither British Cycling nor Cycling UK are trying to change the law, but rather have the wording clarified so that motorists are better informed over why cyclists may ride two abreast.

“At the moment, the rules are that cyclists are allowed to ride side-by-side if they want,” he explained.

“The rule says you should ride no more than two abreast and it says you shouldn’t do it where it’s not safe and if you’re going round a corner.

“I think what Cycling UK and British Cycling are trying to do is not to change the rules, just to make it better known.

“You sometimes have that thing where, for example, if you have a group of club riders out on a Sunday morning, if they’re going down a long, straight road, it’s actually easier for drivers to go past them if they’re riding side-by-side.

“For example, if you had a group of ten, rather than having to overtake a ten-long group, you have to overtake just a five-long group, which is quicker.

“The other reason is, if you’re riding one abreast, there is a temptation often for drivers to try and squeeze past, like on narrow bends where there’s not the space, and particularly on country roads they will overtake, say on a blind bend, because they think it’s only one person.

“The argument is, and this is something which is already in the rules, you should overtake a cyclist, even a single cyclist, the way you would a car. So you’d go all the way to the other side of the road and give them enough room.”

Ferrari asked Walker what drivers should do if they wanted to overtake cyclists, but there was another vehicle approaching.

“Well in which case you need to wait, and that’s what the Highway Code actually already says now, so no-one is saying that the law should be changed,” Walker replied.

“Because there is a bit of a mix-up with this, because people think that if cyclists are riding two abreast, they’re breaking the law, which they’re not.”

The consultation into the proposed changes to the Highway Code closes at midnight tonight and Cycling UK has created an online tool to enable you to reply to it quickly and easily, which you can find here.

https://www.cyclinguk.org/safer-highway-code-cyclists

Simon joined road.cc as news editor in 2009 and is now the site’s community editor, acting as a link between the team producing the content and our readers. A law and languages graduate, published translator and former retail analyst, he has reported on issues as diverse as cycling-related court cases, anti-doping investigations, the latest developments in the bike industry and the sport’s biggest races. Now back in London full-time after 15 years living in Oxford and Cambridge, he loves cycling along the Thames but misses having his former riding buddy, Elodie the miniature schnauzer, in the basket in front of him.

Add new comment

30 comments

Avatar
Gary's bike channel | 3 years ago
2 likes

ok then- two abreast IS safer, it forces a proper overtake. Watch this and tell me the driver could still have done this if i had been riding alongside the rider in front of me?     

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F4adP7FrE5o

thats dangerous driving and the police have done nothing about it. If we let people drive like this when we remain single file, of course two abreast must remain legal! fuck what drivers WANT, its not up to them its up to us, they;re the ones causing the problems, not us.  There were never any tfraffic jams in the 1940s, my grandad cycled everywhere. Now conveniently we have way more cars and daily traffic jams. Wonder why.   Gary out.      

Avatar
Hirsute replied to Gary's bike channel | 3 years ago
0 likes

david rides wrote:

ok then- two abreast IS safer, it forces a proper overtake. Watch this and tell me the driver could still have done this if i had been riding alongside the rider in front of me?     

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F4adP7FrE5o

Would have taken you both out ! Terrible driving.

Avatar
cbrndc | 3 years ago
3 likes

“However, that argument fails to take into account the moral superiority of many drivers, who seem to view anyone on a bicycle as violating their inalienable right to proceed in any manner that they see fit, with apparently little regard for other road users.”

Fixed that for you

Avatar
Condor flyer | 3 years ago
1 like

Peter Walker speaking on LBC radio explains perfectly and reasonably that the aim is to clarify the ambiguous wording used to advise on when to ride two abreast and when not to and that this is not an attempt to change the law which remains unchanged. 

Avatar
Rik Mayals unde... | 3 years ago
6 likes

I had some fuckwit stop and give me a blasting for 'having too bright lights' once. He said it was 'against the highway code'. He gave me a right gobful, after he had put his phone down. I don't think he understood the irony that the only reason I have bright lights, and use them day and night, is because of people like him. If motorists were not as stupid and dangerous, cyclists wouldn't need bright lights to enable the fuckwits to see us.

Avatar
brooksby replied to Rik Mayals underpants | 3 years ago
2 likes

And very few bicycle lights are comparable in brightness to the solar flares coming out of the front of most modern motor vehicles (the ones badly adjusted so that they are never exactly dipped...).

Avatar
eburtthebike replied to brooksby | 3 years ago
0 likes

brooksby wrote:

And very few bicycle lights are comparable in brightness to the solar flares coming out of the front of most modern motor vehicles (the ones badly adjusted so that they are never exactly dipped...).

The blue ones are bad.

Avatar
MiserableBastard | 3 years ago
2 likes

Tory scum. Nuff said.

Avatar
eburtthebike | 3 years ago
5 likes

Outrage even more synthetic than instant whip or plastic wood.  Unable to change their life long approach of attacking anything and everything for money, whether it actually offends them or not, these tired, sad, old white men should be retired and make way for something a little more rational.

EDITORS; this kind of crap isn't selling newspapers any more, check your circulation figures.  Most of the public have grown up and left you behind.

Avatar
Rich_cb | 3 years ago
3 likes

The telegraph article is nonsense.

Author is down in the comments extolling the virtue of patience with slower road users while his article is stoking that very impatience he seems to disapprove of.

Avatar
Captain Badger replied to Rich_cb | 3 years ago
7 likes

Rich_cb wrote:

The telegraph article is nonsense.

I'd just like to say that bears defecate in arboreal areas, and I have heard that Ponitf is of the Roman Catholic persuasion....

Avatar
eburtthebike replied to Captain Badger | 3 years ago
0 likes

Captain Badger wrote:

Rich_cb wrote:

The telegraph article is nonsense.

I'd just like to say that bears defecate in arboreal areas, and I have heard that Ponitf is of the Roman Catholic persuasion....

And the Pontif?yes

Avatar
pockstone replied to eburtthebike | 3 years ago
4 likes

Or even the Pontiff?!

Avatar
Captain Badger replied to pockstone | 3 years ago
0 likes

pockstone wrote:

Or even the Pontiff?!

Not sure about him....

Avatar
pockstone replied to Captain Badger | 3 years ago
0 likes

With a job description like that, I'm pretty dubious too.

Avatar
Captain Badger replied to eburtthebike | 3 years ago
0 likes

eburtthebike wrote:

 

And the Pontif?yes

Him too!

Avatar
brooksby | 3 years ago
5 likes

Quote:

“main concern is that such regulations will serve to further widen the divide between cyclists and drivers when we should all attempt to understand that we have an equal right to use the Queen's highway.”

Why is that the people saying that always seem to be the ones who actually don't think that all road users have an equal right to use the roads?

Avatar
the little onion replied to brooksby | 3 years ago
12 likes

We DON'T have an equal right:

cyclists, pedestrians and horseriders have a right to use a road

drivers of motor vehicles have permission, granted by privilege of having a license and a MOT'd vehicle. They don't have a right to use the road.

Avatar
Gary's bike channel replied to the little onion | 3 years ago
0 likes

when i said to that a police officer she laughed at me and said i had to use the cycle lane.        if the cops dont know the law and who roads were tarmacced for, do we have hope?

Avatar
brooksby | 3 years ago
6 likes

Quote:

“However, that argument fails to take into account the moral superiority of many cyclists, who seem to view anyone in a car as violating their inalienable right to proceed in any manner that they see fit, with apparently little regard for other road users.”

Erm - but I do have an inalienable right to proceed (subject to the applicable laws, so maybe a little bit alienabled) thanks, Mr Hudson.

In my experience it is generally not the cyclists who have little regard for other road users.

Avatar
PRSboy | 3 years ago
5 likes

I speak as a keen driver and cyclist, and I don't get why cyclists two abreast are any harder to overtake than when in single file.  On a normal A road its very unlikely to be safe enough to pass with sufficient clearance while there is a vehicle oncoming, so just wait and overtake as you would another car.  

The only conceivable occasion is on a single track road when there is not enough room to pass cyclists two abreast, but there would in single file.  Also, on narrow roads, being two abreast puts the outside cyclist in harm's way of oncoming vehicles around bends.

My wording would be:

"Overtake cyclists by crossing the centre line when you can see the way ahead to be clear as you would when overtaking another car.  Be aware that cyclists may ride two abreast where it is safe for them to do so.  On a narrow road where there is no centre line, leave sufficient space when passing, and reduce your relative speed."

Avatar
qwerty360 replied to PRSboy | 3 years ago
0 likes

As a further point; The guidance on road widths for the UK advises an upper limit for single track which isn't wide enough to pass a cyclist (per cycling infra guidance) as people can't accurately assess whether cars will fit in opposing directions (so that width range results in head on collisions/side swiping cars when the assessment is wrong).

 

As such it is relatively rare to have roads wide enough to safely pass one cyclist, but not two abreast... (read, on single track you should be waiting for a passing point to overtake, just as you would a tractor etc)

Avatar
mdavidford | 3 years ago
22 likes

Quote:

The moral superiority of cyclists has to stop

I quite agree - non-cyclists should improve themselves morally, so that cyclists are no longer superior.

Avatar
Captain Badger replied to mdavidford | 3 years ago
4 likes

mdavidford wrote:

Quote:

The moral superiority of cyclists has to stop

I quite agree - non-cyclists should improve themselves morally, so that cyclists are no longer superior.

Well said that man

Avatar
Kendalred | 3 years ago
18 likes

Good greif. Astonishing levels of nonsensical argument. This quote sums it up:

“However, that argument fails to take into account the moral superiority of many cyclists, who seem to view anyone in a car as violating their inalienable right to proceed in any manner that they see fit, with apparently little regard for other road users.”

Yeah, because no car drivers drive like they have an inalienable right to proceed in any manner, speed or direction they see fit do they? This is akin to the arguments against the BLM movement saying "well...what about white lives matter!!"

Absolute feckin clowns.

Avatar
Deeferdonk | 3 years ago
17 likes

"Ferrari asked Walker what drivers should do if they wanted to overtake cyclists, but there was another vehicle approaching"

I wonder if he had to ask someone what to do if he needed the toilet and his trousers were zipped up.

Avatar
andystow replied to Deeferdonk | 3 years ago
1 like

Deeferdonk wrote:

"Ferrari asked Walker what drivers should do if they wanted to overtake cyclists, but there was another vehicle approaching" I wonder if he had to ask someone what to do if he needed the toilet and his trousers were zipped up.

...or if someone a bit slower was already using it.

 

Share the stall.

Avatar
TheBillder replied to andystow | 3 years ago
5 likes

And that, your honour, is why my client always has his Go-Pro camera running when in the public toilets. Close passes can happen anywhere.

Avatar
Gary's bike channel replied to Deeferdonk | 3 years ago
0 likes

theres ALWAYS another vehicle approaching in bournemouth. It never ends! nobody works any more. You can go out at ten am, and find a constant stream of traffic coming at you. Go out at 8pm, same situation. Go out on wednesday at 130 pm, youd expect to see one or two cars in your entire journey? no ,theres a massive queue of them coming at you. Why? GO TO WORK YOU SELFISH TAX STEALING CRETINS! it is impossible to overtake a cyclist if we let unemployed people drive around in the oncoming lane at every hour of the day. Make them go to work, the oncoming lane is empty, you can overtake a cyclist in the left lane, who is more than likely a healthy tax payer, not a benefit leech, 

Avatar
mdavidford replied to Gary's bike channel | 3 years ago
0 likes

david rides wrote:

GO TO WORK YOU SELFISH TAX STEALING CRETINS! it is impossible to overtake a cyclist if we let unemployed people drive around in the oncoming lane at every hour of the day. Make them go to work

Well any sympathy your video generated just evaporated. I'm tending to being on the car driver's side now.

Latest Comments