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

Riding 2 abreast is only really safe if everyone stays tight to the left of the road.  This allows vehicles who want to overtake the group to see more clearly and safely negotiate the pass.  To suggest a group should take the lane is completely counter intuitive to this.  Furthermore, if there was a problem with the a vehicle trying to negotiate the pass and an accident occurs, the riders closest to the middle of the road are left most vulnerable to being hit, if not the whole group.  Also, taking the lane only infuriates the drivers and when since they hold the weight advantage it is not to the cyclist's benefit to do so.  

When going as only 2 riders, I will ride 2 abreast on quieter roads until someone comes up behind me and is trying to pass and I usually move over.  Again, to facilite a car's easy means to pass will only make it safer and happier for everyone.

Clarity could be achieved by simply removing rule 66 and replacing it with the information that drivers should expect groups of cyclists to ride as a group and to take up the width of the lane.

The only advice to cyclists, on this specific issue, should be that on narrow country roads, riding single file and spacing out may be safer with respect to oncoming traffic at unsighted bends.

Anything else creates edge cases and expectations almost to the point of requiring direct mind links to your fellow road users.

There should be more emphasis generally about courtesy to others and whilst that goes all ways, drivers should be left in no doubt that they are expected to tolerate and make allowances for more vulnerable road users.

How about 'overtake cyclists only when it's safe to do so and leave as much room as you would a horse and rider'.

Why not just get rid of it. That is what I put down on my response.

"When overtaking a cyclist..(etc) give as much room as possible. You should move into the next lane to do so when it is clear".

Of course if the MInistry of Cars and Lorries does not want to do that, then at least they should be honest.

Rule 66. If you have to cycle in the road, you MUST ride in single file as close to the gutter as possible. You MUST not ride side by side or overtake another cyclist or ride in groups of more than 3. You MUST stop and pull over in plenty of time to allow cars to pass you without impending their speed which may be higher than the posted speed limit.

Rule 163. Overtaking. Cyclists shouldn't be on the road, so always pass as close as you can as fast as you can and use your horn. Be aware that cycles can scratch your paint and that the riders can cause dents and may even your windscreen or knock your wing door mirror. 

I am all in favour of people riding according to the Highway Code, but I am always being close-passed and I am always single-file. Until The Enemy, the police, can be forced to accept that drivers should drive acording to the Highway Code and enforce it it's all just verbiage. Lancashire police have never prosecuted anyone for close-passing alone. 

How about:

You should … ride in single file on roads without lane markings when drivers wish to overtake and it is safe to let them do so.

It will make very little difference seeing while there's no obligation to keep up to speed with changes to the HC once you've passed your driving test. There are literally thousands of people hooning around in 1-tonne lumps of metal who haven't looked at it in years.

I think it should say 'move into the other lane to overtake' 

and 'allow drivers to overtake in narrow roads by pulling into a suitable passing place' none of this single file stuff.

After all, drivers have engines which requires approximately zero effort to use (zero effort in some cases).

I wrote to Cycling UK earlier this year to question the new rule 66, because it doesn't seem to address its stated aim, but their otherwise helpful ready-made consultation response appeared to endorse it. Glad to see they and other bodies are now suggesting clearer alternatives. To my mind though, "cyclists can ride two abreast" needs reinforcing in the section for drivers, not just to appear in the section for cyclists - can't remember if the proposals do that. Of course whether anyone reads any of the HC is another matter.    

"allowing them to overtake (e.g. by moving into single file) when you feel it is safe to let them do so"

How can British cycling seriously propose this wording, singling out doe NOT make it easier to execute a safe overtake. When the road is wide nough for a white line down the middle it is the exact opposite, it does however facilitate a dangerous overtake or extend the distance required for a safe pass (and hence reduce the number of opportunities) and the practice should be actively discouraged.

Additionally the implications of this statement is that riding 2 abreast is forming some kind of blocking manoeuvre to prevent an overtake which it very much isn't

*subtly different on single tracks where singling out is required

I'm not sure either wording really makes sense?  The close pass iniative effectively says that when passing a bike the car should be a minimum of 2.25m from the left edge of the carriageway.  The average UK carriageway is probably 3m to 4m in width, so in the majority of cases a car would have to cross to the next lane to overtake, which they shouldn't do in the face of oncoming traffic.

So in that case, the simplest wording would be to say something along the lines of "when passing cyclists on a two lane highway you must change lane".  It's then completely unambiguous and makes space for riders riding single or two abreast.  It also means that if you're the sort of driver who overtakes cyclists on corners by straddling the white line and then have a head on shunt it will be very clear who was at fault.

The only scenario that doesn't work for is single lane country roads where singling out may sometimes be an acceptable approach (although pulling over to let queuing traffic past is probably safer in those circumstances, in the same way one would if, say, driving a tractor), so some wording would be needed for that too.

The problem with the wording "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.” is that drivers will only see it as the responsibility of the cyclist to have eyes in the back of their head and get out of the driver's way. They will never read as far as the "when you feel it is safe to let them do so." part of the sentence.

It also implies that the cyclist will give somehow permission for the driver to overtake. We all know that it's highly unlikely that many drivers would wait for that to happen.

I think if cyclists were obliged to ride single-file, then motorists should also be obliged to drive single-file.  After all, the majority of motorists on the road at any one time are driving around in a double-width vehicle but with only one person in it.

I agree with Sarah Storey/British Cycling except for one thing.

I'd remove the word "abreast", because it is the trigger that makes impatient drivers lose their minds. Just describe it as people riding next to each other.

I believe that language matters, and this is really important. The fact that no one will agree with me shows either (a) that I'm ahead of my time and have great insight or (b) that I'm wrong.

100%. The new proposed wording will cause grief to people on bikes.