- News
- Reviews
- Bikes
- Accessories
- Accessories - misc
- Computer mounts
- Bags
- Bar ends
- Bike bags & cases
- Bottle cages
- Bottles
- Cameras
- Car racks
- Child seats
- Computers
- Glasses
- GPS units
- Helmets
- Lights - front
- Lights - rear
- Lights - sets
- Locks
- Mirrors
- Mudguards
- Racks
- Pumps & CO2 inflators
- Puncture kits
- Reflectives
- Smart watches
- Stands and racks
- Trailers
- Clothing
- Components
- Bar tape & grips
- Bottom brackets
- Brake & gear cables
- Brake & STI levers
- Brake pads & spares
- Brakes
- Cassettes & freewheels
- Chains
- Chainsets & chainrings
- Derailleurs - front
- Derailleurs - rear
- Forks
- Gear levers & shifters
- Groupsets
- Handlebars & extensions
- Headsets
- Hubs
- Inner tubes
- Pedals
- Quick releases & skewers
- Saddles
- Seatposts
- Stems
- Wheels
- Tyres
- Health, fitness and nutrition
- Tools and workshop
- Miscellaneous
- Tubeless valves
- Buyers Guides
- Features
- Forum
- Recommends
- Podcast
news
Two abreast - cheltenham flyer tori and skardy 2GMB slammed on social media after asking: “Should cyclists be forced to ride single file?”
ITV’s flagship morning show, Good Morning Britain, has been slammed on social media after it aired a segment entitled “Should cyclists ride single file?” which pitched broadcaster and cyclist Matt Barbet, who patiently explained why it is often safer for people to ride two abreast, against writer and BBC DJ Ed Adoo, who ignored the question at hand and instead dredged up an anecdote from eight years ago, saying that people on bikes need to show more “etiquette.”
The piece, which can be viewed on ITV Hub – it starts at 2 hours 10 minutes into the recording – began with one of the show’s hosts saying, “Drivers and cyclists testing the other’s patience,” with his co-presenter adding, “But with more cyclists than ever on Britain’s roads, should those taking to two wheels be forced to ride single file?”
It then cut to a brief report where, after some dashcam footage and a few vox pops, the reporter said: “Part of the problem, say cycling groups, is Rule 66 of the Highway Code, causing confusion.”
The reporter says that campaigners are calling for the rule to be changed to read, “You can ride two abreast, and often it is safer to do so.”
Both British Cycling and Cycling UK did incorporate those words into their suggestions for a new version of the rule in response a Department for Transport (DfT) consultation last year into proposed changes to the Highway Code.
> Fleet Street fury over campaigners' calls to clarify ‘two abreast’ cycling rule
Currently, the rule says: “You should never ride more than two abreast, and ride in single file on narrow or busy roads and when riding round bends.”
The 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.”
Barbet, a former presenter of Daybreak, the predecessor show to GMB, as well as ITV4’s The Cycle Show and its Tour of Britain coverage, was invited to put his response first and began by saying that viewing cyclists and motorists as separate tribes was a fallacy, pointing out that most people he knows who ride bikes drive cars, too. “It’s not cyclists clogging up the roads, it’s cars,” he added.
It’s been a busy Bank Holiday weekend on the roads, but many drivers have been frustrated, getting stuck behind rows of cyclists out enjoying a pedal in the sunshine.
With more cyclists than ever on Britain’s roads, should cyclists be forced to ride in single file?#GMB pic.twitter.com/wBpNUseFMW
— Good Morning Britain (@GMB) May 31, 2021
He went on to explain how riding two abreast makes it easier and safer for motorists to overtake cyclists, as has been clearly shown in this video produced by journalist and author Carlton Reid six years ago which features advanced driving instructor Blaine Walsh and champion cyclist turned active travel advocate Chris Boardman.
Side by Side from carltonreid on Vimeo.
He also highlighted the principle of the hierarchy of road users, which puts the most vulnerable, first pedestrians, then cyclists, at the bottom of a pyramid, and those driving vehicles with the propensity to do most harm, such as HGVs, at the top.
Incorporating the concept within the Highway Code formed part of last year’s consultation, with the DfT saying that it “ensures that those road users who can do the greatest harm have the greatest responsibility to reduce the danger or threat they may pose to other road users.
“The objective of the hierarchy is not to give priority to pedestrians, cyclists and horse riders in every situation, but rather to ensure a more mutually respectful and considerate culture of safe and effective road use that benefits all users,” the DfT added.
As often appears to be the case when TV shows seek to put forward a ‘balanced’ debate on a whole host of supposedly divisive topics, not just cycling, the counterpoint to someone putting forward a case based on facts and evidence was instead based on anecdote and sweeping generalisations.
Adoo started his reply to Bardet by recounting an incident in 2013 in which a cyclist swore at him, which prompted him to pen a column at the time for Huffington Post which was published under the headline, It's Time We Gained Some Respect From Cyclists.
'There needs to be some etiquette with cyclists' - @EdwardAdoo
It's the age-old dilemma between cyclists and drivers and a solution doesn't seem to be on the horizon! pic.twitter.com/7KgWp5ZLA0
— Good Morning Britain (@GMB) May 31, 2021
In that column, written at the end of a month in which six cyclists had been killed on London’s roads, Adoo dismissed safety measures such as protected cycle lanes or banning HGVs, claiming, “The problem is it's nothing to do with bus or lorry drivers but the cyclist [sic] themselves.”
In his conclusion to that piece, he added: “The bottom line, cyclists need to learn how to respect other motorists and not do idiotic things such as riding without a helmet or protected gear.
“It has to stop and I think a cycle registration or tax scheme would ensure first and foremost, that deaths are reduced.”
On GMB this morning, he returned to that theme – without once addressing the specific issue supposedly being debated.
'There needs to be some etiquette with cyclists' - @EdwardAdoo
It's the age-old dilemma between cyclists and drivers and a solution doesn't seem to be on the horizon! pic.twitter.com/7KgWp5ZLA0
— Good Morning Britain (@GMB) May 31, 2021
“I’m not saying that all cyclists are morally wrong, and they’re rude and they swear all the time,” he insisted.
“Yes, you are,” Barbet interjected.
“No, I’m not saying all cyclists are rude,” Adoo replied, “what I’m saying is there needs to be etiquette with cyclists,” going on to repeat his call for cyclists to be registered.
Asked by Barbet if he ever rode a bike on the road, he answered: “Yeah, loads of times.”
“You know how intimidating it can feel, don’t you?” Barbet said.
“Listen, it’s not about intimidation, it’s about respect on both sides,” Adoo insisted.
“But again, some cyclists – especially London – they think they own the roads, and they don’t, it should be that the highway should be for everyone, and for everyone to owe respect.”
Among those responding to GMB’s tweets of clips of today’s segment was Detective Chief Superintendent Andy Cox of Lincolnshire Police, national lead for road collision investigations.
The real safety priority is improved driving culture. Too many drivers feel an entitlement to rush past the #cyclist even when that means a ‘close pass’ adding unacceptable levels of risk & for only marginal time gains. More patience is needed until a safe pass is possible. #GMB
— Andy Cox (@AndyCoxDCS) May 31, 2021
Unsurprisingly, the clips also drew the usual share of comments about how cyclists should have to be insured and pay non-existent ‘road tax’ – points that were quickly countered by other Twitter users.
That’s not true is it? Drivers have all those regulatory identifications and they break road rules significantly more than cyclists. https://t.co/kbVNpKAGik the only difference is your bias- you perceive cyclists break more because you’re not one.
— Tom Staniford (@tomstaniford) May 31, 2021
One of the most idiotic representations I've read.
How much public money do you think is spent dealing with over THREE HUNDRED ROAD COLLISIONS PER DAY.
What do you have to say about almost 25,000 killed or seriously injured on our roads per year? pic.twitter.com/KGnd5b7o1a
— Drew White (@drewsonix) May 31, 2021
Thanks for stirring, @GMB. Now when I ride on the road I can deal with a few more dangerous, ill-informed, entitled drivers threatening my safety. All for your clicks.
— Tom Staniford (@tomstaniford) May 31, 2021
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.
Latest Comments
- momove 4 hours 24 min ago
You two are going to have to help out the undereducated here!...
- VIPcyclist 4 hours 49 min ago
Whilst I was reading this I was thinking : sounds familiar, yep, that's right . Then I read the bit about being referred for a fitness to drive and...
- Dnnnnnn 5 hours 2 min ago
I'm unclear how simply considering the views of people who travel through an area is voting for rat-runs. No need to explain though.
- David9694 6 hours 1 min ago
When you don't know for sure what the whinge would be if this work was postponed to January, but you know there would be one:...
- biking59boomer 6 hours 42 min ago
Sadly the cyclist hate in this country seems to have worsened of late. Dangerous motoring combined with anti-cycling officialdom in some places is...
- Cyclo1964 9 hours 14 min ago
Brilliant 🤣
- joules1975 12 hours 8 min ago
Fair enough, but to describe the tool required for the lockrings as 'niche' when its a readily available in various forms from dozens of...
- Secret_squirrel 13 hours 2 min ago
Disappointed that the not even in the land of the free do they shoot or jail bike thieves.
Add new comment
62 comments
The line about never more than 2 abreast, and single file on winding, narrow or busy roads is not to allow for o'takes, it's about meeting something coming the other way. It's safety advice to the rider, and not about "holding the traffic up".
You're right, this needs to be clarified
Interesting, I always took that single file on narrow roads to be directed towards avoiding conflicts with oncoming cars, and for clarity they should define this as roads without a centre line.
While busy roads tend not to be so narrow, so it seemd it was to allow drivers to pass, but that would only be feasabile where the road is wider than the majority of UK roads, which would be defined as critical width by dutch guidance and to be avoided.
Yes, that's what I meant, re reading showed me that I wasn't as clear as I could be
I think I was agreeing with you on narrow roads, but questioning the conclusion as to busy roads. AS to my mind riding two abrest does not cause conflict with oncoming traffic (except on very narrow roads), so I can't understand the intend for the restriction on busy roads.
But drivers take busy roads to mean - any road where I can't immediately pass cyclists because there is oncoming traffic, never considering that safely passing is not possible in such circumstances.
Sorry, again, not comprehending what was (clearly) written.
On busy roads I have the same interpretation.
This is not about attempts to o'take the rider(s) - rule 163 is invoked, and it is not the responsibility of the overtakee to facilitate the manoeuvre of the overtaker (I know I'm teaching Granny to suck eggs at this point, I'm just going through my reasoning step by step). A busy road though is likely to see more o'takes in either direction, so again I believe this is more about conflict with oncoming.
Personally I believe it to be poorly written and unnecessary - it is incumbent on the overtaking vehicle to ensure there is no oncoming, but there you are....
to my mind "as much space as" does not mean the same thing as "as close to"
But for the avoidance of doubt the instructions for dealing with cyclists are the same clause as instructions for dealing with horses. So drivers should think to themselves "would I pass a horse this close?" If not they are too close.
I have underlined the major flaw in your argument here, except it doesnt show even though it's available on the editor
"drivers should think to themselves" - this is the major flaw here
have you tried cycling with more etiquette?
My top button is always fastened, and my tie neatly tightened. I'm not sure what more I can do tbh....
Don't know where to start with Adoo's 'response'.
Im genuinely appalled by his notion of cyclists owing respect to another group of road users.
Should be be crushed in his car by an HGV, would that be his fault for not showing respect to a superior road user?
cyclists must not ride two abreast - YouTube
if the link doesnt work. you tube- search gary rides bikes- cyclists must not ride two abreast.
its such a stupid argument. Reminds me of the saying'' calling the kettle black''.
cars are almost always two abreast and get in eachothers way, bikers way, lorry drivers, bus drivers way. But you dont see us cycling or triding motorbikes up to their window and yelling at them to get single file! it is safer and easier to pass people riding side by side, MOST of the time. Yestedday i saw two young kids on a main road with their parents sat right out next to them, and it did indeed force every car driver to go into the other lane to pass, rather than going anywhere near the small child on the left hand side. Only hypocrites can tell people to be single file, unless theyre willing to be told to get a chainsaw out and slice the car in half.
when 4 cyclists occupy the same amount of space as a single person in a car they are being selfish and hogging space.
Only time single file would help would be when a motorbike wants to overtake, and the other lane is occupied.
Greedy selfish motorists want all of the pubic roads, all to themselves all the time. All they do most of the time is move around empty seats that are hardly ever used.
maybe we need a campaign of riding these
https://www.internationalsurreyco.com/four-wheel-bikes/surrey-cycles/
What incredibly coincidental timing! A report comes out that most people support spending money on segregated cycle facilities and taking away space from motor vehicles, and GMB ignore that and produce this dire excuse for a debate.
I may have hinted at this before, but the media in this country is congenitally opposed to cycling. If they weren't, there would be daily programmes about the overwhelming benefits of a change from driving to cycling, instead of these fake articles only aired to distract from them.
if the health, mental health and weight benefits of cycling could be supplied in a pill, half the country would be taking it. And probably be prepared to spend more than the majorirty of cyclists do on cycling.
The comments on the Twitter thread are predictably depressing; this is what we're up against. The 'great' British public once again showing they've less brains than a service station pasty. And their knowledge, (or lack of) of The Highway Code is just breathtaking......and these people are in charge of a metal box.
Take heart VP, the comments are from a self selecting poule of the kind of people who watch GMB. Not a reliable cross section
It's now getting to a stage that I no longer have the energy to counter ill informed rants 😕 The most recent being screamed at for being in the middle of the road. I tried to tell them it was the middle of the lane with a series of three traffic islands and the road to my left was all cut up and anyway I was doing 20mph! They couldn't accept this and were so fixated on my being in the middle of the road and finally resorted to calling me an effin p**** before racing away and jumping a red!
If you are in a car, unless you are driving a Caterham 7, you have no right to complain about other people being two abreast.
Why a caterham and not a Westfield, or an Ariel atom
At least with a Renault twizy or the rocket that Gordon Murray launched a few years ago the occupants are in single file
Even then the seats are two abreast . And they take up the same width as any other car. Mine is the same width as a Sierra, because it's all Sierra running gear
Pretty much the only time I get abuse is when riding two abreast with club mates/ friends. Almost EVERY TIME, they have a totally empty lane on the right in which to safely overtake.
They have absolutely no idea about the leaving a cars width when overtaking rule, or what it means for them (that even when overtaking cyclists in single file, they'll have to go into almost all the other lane so may as well just do it as default).
As usual, tv muppets promoting never ending hate crime for views.
Clearly GMB viwers are dyed-in-the-wool Nazis, Daily Mail readers and paid-up Tories. There is no reasoning with, or educating them.
I'm just soooooo tired of this whole anti-cyclist rhetoric
In which left-wing publication? Your link is from the Huffington Post.
That they printed this shows that the conservative media is the side promoting the culture war, which is the opposite of the incorrect point you keep trying to make. Maybe you assumed the Huff is left-wing as someone in it somehow criticised your true love, but it does not make the publicaton (or news aggregator in this case) 'left-wing'.
Anyway, my mama always says 'don't feed the trolls' so I'll leave you to your bizarre alternative facts and wish you a happy bank holiday Monday. Stay safe.
Being considered left wing in a nation whose right wingers consider Joe Biden to be a Socialist is fundamentally unconvincing.
FTFY
The article that you linked to was from Huff UK and your 'proof' that it is a left-wing publication is a contentious rating from a US source specifically about the US version (and even then, just look at their methodology - I'm sure even you could pick it apart).
Whilst it is nice to pick apart Boo's arguments, the Huff is "left" wing like the Guardian etc but even the latter has anti cycling sentiments in there sometimes as well. It is certainly no Heil or Telegraph though.
Thing is, the Venn is remarkably accurate. And Gammons are over-represented.
Pages