Giro d’Italia stage winner Domenico Pozzovivo has called for Italy’s laws on cycling two abreast to be changed, after the 42-year-old was stopped and fined €18.50 by police at the weekend for riding side-by-side with fellow pro Diego Ulissi.
Pozzovivo, who retired at the end of the season after two decades in the professional peloton which saw him finish in the top ten of the Giro seven times, was training with UAE Team Emirates rider Ulissi on Sunday around Lake Como when they realised that they were being followed by the Carabinieri close to Colico, near the lake’s most northern point.
According to the former AG2R La Mondiale and Bahrain Merida rider, the officers followed the pair along the stretch of road as they continued to ride two abreast, before eventually stopping them and leading them to the police station in nearby Gravedona.
There, Pozzovivo – who had been riding on the left of Ulissi – was issued with a €18.50 penalty, which he paid immediately.
Pozzovivo after winning his one and only Giro d’Italia stage, into Lago Laceno, in 2012 (Fabio Ferrari – LaPresse – RCS Sport)
“They followed us for a while, as if they were escorting us,” the recently retired pro told Italian cycling site Tuttobiciweb. “They wanted to check that I stayed on the left side of the road and once they made sure that I was, they signalled for us to follow them to the nearest station.”
According to the Italian Highway Code, outside of towns and cities cyclists are required to ride single file, unless there are more than four riders in a group, or if one of the cyclists is under 10 years old.
However, responding to his fine, Pozzovivo argued that the current rules do not do enough to protect cyclists from close passing and dangerous drivers, and even called for the law on cycling two abreast to be changed to emulate the current situation in the UK, where riding side-by-side is legal and recommended for safety reasons.
> The Highway Code for cyclists — all the rules you need to know for riding on the road explained
Back in August 2019, the lightweight climber, then in his final year at Bahrain, sustained a broken arm and leg, as well as six broken ribs, after being struck by a driver while on a training ride in Calabria, ruling him out for the rest of the season.
“The problem is not the fine but, as I explained to the Carabinieri, cyclists are too often grazed by cars who come too close,” the 42-year-old told Tuttobiciweb this week.
“And for that reason I prefer to always ride side-by-side with the person accompanying me to increase my visibility, my visible ‘mass’.
“I have already been hit several times, and I do not intend to take any more risks. As long as I ride a bike, I will always ride two abreast. This law needs to be changed to what they do in Great Britain and other places, where it’s legally permitted to ride side by side.
“I prefer to pay the fine than risk ending up under another car.”
“Stop the daily massacre on our roads”
Pozzovivo’s call for cyclists to be better protected by Italian law comes just under two months after he took part in his last ever professional race at Il Lombardia – a situation that recalls the tragic death of his compatriot Davide Rebellin, who was killed by a hit-and-run lorry driver in November 2022, just weeks on from his own retirement from the sport, after 30 years as a pro cyclist.
And in 2017, another of Pozzovivo’s contemporaries in the Italian peloton, Michele Scarponi, was killed when he was hit by a driver who later admitted to prosecutors that he had been watching a video on his phone at the time of the fatal crash.
It also comes in the same week that double Olympic champion Remco Evenepoel suffered fractures to his rib, right shoulder blade, and right hand, as well as torn ligaments, a dislocated collarbone, and a bruised lung, when a postal worker allegedly swung the door of her van open and into his path during a training ride in Belgium.
Yesterday, the Association of Italian Professional Cyclists responded to the dooring incident that led to Evenepoel’s crash by criticising the press in Italy for shifting the blame onto cyclists when reporting on road collisions, and using the “narrative of the cyclist who ‘crashes into a van’, who ‘gets under a lorry’, who ‘hits a car’, or, in the best of cases, is the protagonist of a simple accident.”
“We understand the speed with which we are often forced to work in newsrooms, but we believe it is essential that we pay more attention to the choice of words and headlines given in news,” the association’s president Cristian Salvato said in an open letter to the Italian Order of Journalists.
“Italy is the country with the highest number of deaths per kilometre cycled in Europe, and we ask for the help of journalists to spread a culture of respect for life that is more necessary than ever.
“With their articles, the stories they choose to tell and the way they report them in newspapers, on TV, on the radio, and on the web, they can contribute to stopping the daily massacre on our roads.”
30 thoughts on ““I will always ride two abreast”: Pro cyclist stopped and fined by Italian police for cycling two abreast, as he says “I’d rather pay the fine than risk ending up under another car””
The cars all drive two
The cars all drive two abreast, even when they are only one up. So why is it a different rule on a bike?
On another train of thought, is it also illegal in Italy to take primary? This fine would seem to suggest so.
I am quite surprised. I
I am quite surprised. I recall reading (indeed ages ago….emphsis on the ages) drivers in Italy were respectful of cyclists on the road.
The silly thing is I drive a transport truck for work and it’s not that hard to go safely around others on the road- I wonder if these bad drivers ought to pay someone to drive them instead of ruining and taking lives.
Laz wrote:
In my limited experience, drivers in Italy are indeed respectful of cyclists when they see them, but there is also quite a macho culture amongst male drivers that leads them to take significant chances on the road. I’d say (again this is from limited experience I admit) that you are less likely in Italy than in the UK to have trouble with drivers being deliberately aggressive when you’re on a bike, but on the flipside you are somewhat more likely to have to face drivers behaving in a frightening manner because they are going at it as if they are in the Monte Carlo rally. Also the driving culture in big cities is notably aggressive, again there doesn’t seem to be as much aggression directed at cyclists as there is in the UK but the general every man for himself, use your horn constantly and steal every extra inch of space you can get culture from drivers can be both bewildering and scary at times.
As a rider, driver and car
As a rider, driver and car passenger, riding abreast, especially when with just 2 riders seems one of the most dangerous things ever, especially at a country not very used to cyclists on the road.
This guys claims just 2 riding abreast will increase visibility. I strongly disagree and you just being exposed more to the distracted/talking on the phone/drunk/drugged/too old to see anything beyond the basic shape of the road and big cars/the one with the dirty windshield driver who expects just to turn on turns and stop behind other cars and try to stay approximately on the center of his lane. Even worse, there are the lunatics, that think they have the right to ram you, because you delay them or you are breaking the law (where or when it is illegal).
Post all the videos from Boardman, relevant arguments and beautiful sketches with couples riding side by side like Napoleon placing his scale troops at a Waterloo map. You will definitely not change my mind, I just home to help somebody else see the reality. Doesn’t matter how the road is or the law is, try to get covered.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jSSz1vxO0kc
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_wamImk70Xg
Things of course aren’t black or white, riding abreast is illegal where I am, yet have done in almost empty roads and always ready to go back in single file.
cyclisto wrote:
Coming to the table completely unwilling to be persuaded by anybody else’s argument is not a great approach if you hope to persuade them of yours. It doesn’t really leave any space for a meaningful discussion.
cyclisto wrote:
If you can’t see two riders side by side easier than two riders in single file then you should give up your driving licence and stick to being a passenger or riding your bike.
Your argument seems to be
Your argument seems to be ‘ride in the gutter so that drivers who don’t see you might miss you through sheer luck’.
That’s not an accurate diagnosis of the problem, and therefore not a good solution.
I also believe that riding
I also believe that riding two abreast is more dangerous. The best way to improve visibility is by using a rear radar light and a front light, even during the day, and, of course, wearing colorful clothing. The difference in visibility between a white and a black helmet is significant.
The article also describes the rules for cyclists in Italy. In my opinion, these rules should be the same across all of Europe (if not the entire world). There should also be consistent rules about using bike paths. Sometimes you’re allowed to use the road (if you’re in a group, training, or if the tire width is below a certain limit, etc.), while other times you’re required to use the cycleway.
This is exactly where the UCI should focus its efforts—improving and harmonizing cycling regulations—not on writing rules about the length of socks. Obviously, making these trivial rules is much easier than working with governments in each country to accomplish something truly beneficial.
Martin_ wrote:
Except that the UCI is a sports governing body, and has nothing to do with transit or recreational cycling. That would be like the FIA trying to regulate what car drivers do on the road.
No, I disagree. From my
No, I disagree. From my experience here in the Czech Republic, the ČSC (our local cycling federation) represents all cyclists—or at least it should. It’s not just about racing. Similarly, the FIA claims to care about general mobility in addition to motor sport.
So, who else should be the government’s partner in discussions about these issues?
What FIA says about itself: The FIA is the governing body of motor sport and promotes safe, sustainable, and accessible mobility for all road users worldwide.
Sporting ideas may be
Sporting ideas may be orthogonal to or even conflict with “general transport use”. At the most basic there are different “use cases”. Sporting organisations might be keen for sponsorship – from fuel and car companies! They might be principally concerned about bigger groups cycling (occasionally), longer rides, and be more concerned about speed.
In the UK you’ll hear some more sport-focussed cyclists rejecting the notion of cycle infra – they’re happy enough riding with traffic. Most people in the UK don’t ride at all – at least in part due to not wanting to ride with motor traffic!
While there can be considerable overlap that isn’t a given. (Although sub-groups affiliated with the main bodies may also have wider concerns).
Just look at how different the bikes are (sport, transport – and that’s not counting all the “cycles” you can see here)!
In the UK while British Cycling does do some general cycling stuff, Cycling UK is more focussed on the “everyone cycling”. (And in fact even they started from a cycle-touring club, so are at least as much focussed on “recreation” as “transport”. ). Sustrans? Hmm… mixed opinions there, but I think it can be said they’re now at least as focussed on walking as cycling?
Sort of similarly NL has the Royal Dutch Cycling Union (sport / racing) and the Fietsersbond (transport / general cycling – who started as a campaign group for cyclists’ safety) etc.
I can definitely see radar
I can definitely see radar when I’m on the roads.
The required colour of clothing varies according to the background and lighting.
If 2 cyclists ride side by side dressed up as you require how is that more dangerous than one cyclist ?
What percentage of overtakes
What percentage of overtakes are close passes in your experience, and how many of those are because the driver hasn’t seen you? For me the second number is 0%. All the lights and radars in the world won’t help, you’ll still get close passed.
And I’m not holding my breath for the FIA to fight my corner (or the UCI).
FIA represents disabled road
FIA represents disabled road users – the Federation is the governing body for world motor sport and the federation of the world’s leading Mobility Organisations.
I was close passed this morning (camera glitch meant no footage).
I had a 300 lumens rear light and a radar light but the speeding driver did not care or see.
The radar definitely helps.
The radar definitely helps. Since I started using it, the percentage of close passes has decreased, and the effect was immediate.
And I’m not saying that the UCI does this, but my question is: who else should do it, as I believe it should be done? Who should work to unify the rules across Europe and support cyclists in general?
I don’t know what the FIA does, but I do know that the UCI does nothing in this regard.
Martin_ wrote:
Amazing! I didn’t realize that they put out enough energy to deflect a two ton car! It must take a while to recharge the battery though if the radar is that powerfull!
Martin_ wrote:
Supporting cyclists – there are plenty of membership/charitable organisations. CoaB has flagged up a few above, and there are others, such as touring/randonneur/audax clubs, local clubs, bike lobby groups, and so on, which are there to serve the needs of their users; and then there are governmental and psuedo-governmental organisations (such as British Cycling) where governments want to encourage cycling as a policy measure.
Unifying the rules – well, first of all we have to determine whether that’s a sensible measure (which I’m afraid takes more than you simply asserting it to be so). There are good arguments in the other direction – that what are sensible rules and norms in one context are absolutely not in another. You mentioned, for example, whether cyclists are required to use cycle facilities. That might make sense where those facilities form a high-quality (or even adequate) network, but not so much somewhere where they’re a minimal gesture at getting the cyclists out of the way of motor traffic and then abandoning them.
Aside from confirmation bias,
Aside from confirmation bias, radar alters how you ride, so if there was a reduction, the reason(s) may not be as you would wish them to be.
I can hear the car
I can hear the car approaching, then I get close passed. How will seeing it on a radar help me? I can see radar being helpful if you’re unable to turn your head or you can’t hear approaching cars.
Slightly different to that
Slightly different to that which was claimed.
Radar means you can (depending on model), tell how far away they are and what speed. Then you can see if they are slowing. This then gives you options around taking primary, making a J curve ( in an attempt to get their attention), diving for the kerb or bunny hopping on to it ( in the worst case). It doesn’t do away with a small mirror, because even if they are slowing, it doesn’t mean they are on the right track – away from you.
It just gives you a few extra seconds to control things or abandon !
I think the original claim was relating to the garmin which changes light pattern with an approaching motorist. Or you could just have 2 or 3 cheap lights all with different patterns.
Martin_ wrote:
Why?
If it’s a group ride with 10
If it’s a group ride with 10 people, then riding two abreast is absolutely fine. But when it’s just two of us, the only thing that happens is that it increases the aggression of drivers waiting behind, and raises the risk of close passes and other issues. Drivers feel like you’re doing something illegal, and they often try to “teach you a lesson.” This is my experience from here.
I always keep in mind that cyclists are weak compared to cars. It’s not about riding in the gutter, but not actively looking for fights or showing off how strong I feel on the bike.
Unfortunately I find that a)
Unfortunately I find that a) I have little control over what is going to trigger some driver b) there is little way of telling beforehand and c) I’ve definitely had a few (luckily one or two I can remember) plain “there’s a cyclist, let’s get them” events.
So I appreciate “stack the odds in your favour” and am certainly not “actively looking for fights” – which BTW seems an odd way to describe a perfectly normal, legal behaviour which is in fact kinda recommended for safety purposes (rule 66) in the rules… At some point though you have to accept that trying not to “annoy” unpredictable potential aggressors won’t keep you safe and also has an emotional / mental cost to yourself.
I’d say it’s somewhere between “don’t stare at people” and wearing a (un)lucky rabbit’s foot.
To be clear then, a group of
To be clear then, a group of 10 won’t trigger a driver but 2 will.
And you’ve never been taught a lesson simply for being on the road ?
Surely a massive waste of
Surely a massive waste of police resources. Presumably the whole process of following and escorting the cyclists took around an hour and involved two officers and a car.
Most of the group rides I go
Most of the group rides I go on involve riding 2 abreast, as it is a social as well as a training activity. However, when traffic comes behind us, we go into single file to allow it to pass, then regroup into 2 abreast. It seems the most sensible way of co-operating with other road users.
Mr Blackbird wrote:
Obviously, it depends on the specifics of the road, but in general it should be easier for a driver to overtake cyclists that are 2 abreast as the distance is shorter. I would guess that you go into single file to allow drivers to overtake without having to fully take the other lane, but it’s debatable as to whether that’s encouraging poor overtakes.
Absolutely. I find most
Absolutely. I find most drivers are reasonable. But there seems to be less patience on Friday afternoons / eves and at school drop off / collection times.
Mr Blackbird wrote:
The very worst drivers seem to congregate outside of schools and take-aways
Beautifully and succinctly
Beautifully and succinctly explained. However, it’s an uphill battle when people such as Lisa, the Surrey Police & Crime Commissioner, no less, espouse the following views:
https://www.theguardian.com/lifeandstyle/2024/dec/06/dining-across-the-divide-im-not-anti-cyclist-im-anti-cyclists-who-ignore-red-lights-and-drive-three-or-four-abreast-in-front-of-me