The UK government appears set on killing off the chain gang – that’s one takeaway from yesterday’s launch of a consultation on proposed changes to the Highway Code.
There’s a lot to unpack from the consultation – just the summary of the planned amendments runs to a couple of dozen pages – which opened on the same day as Number 10 set out how it plans to revolutionise cycling in England.
And, sure, there were certainly some more headline-grabbing aspects of the consultation for the mainstream media to chew over, including setting out a hierarchy of road users to protect the most vulnerable.
It also for the first time sets out actual recommended passing distances because, let’s face it, we all know exactly what 2 metres looks like after the past four months [you forgot the eyeroll emoji – Ed].
But there, in black and white, are the words that should give rise to concern to anyone who likes going for a ride with cycling mates, or fellow club members, perhaps to a café and having a bit of a chat along the way.
The current wording of Rule 66 of the Highway Code says among other things that while cycling, “You should … never ride more than two abreast, and ride in single file on narrow or busy roads and when riding round bends.”
The proposed new wording, however, says that “You 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.”
Now, it’s important to note the use of the word “should” rather than “must” which appears in many other places in the Highway Code; the former is advisory, the latter is the law (and footnotes peppered throughout highlight the relevant legislation.
Nevertheless, whether it’s advice or an instruction backed by the force of the law, the government is effectively telling cyclists not to ride two abreast on busy roads.
And that spells bad news for those who enjoy riding in chain gangs – although we suppose you could just confine your rides to country lanes where you apparently have the government’s blessing on safety grounds.
Which raises a serious point – and a potentially deathly serious one at that, if you’ll forgive the expression.
> Monday moaning: Why do cyclists ride two abreast?
It is often safer for cyclists in a group to ride two abreast, irrespective of the kind of road, because it makes it easier and quicker for motorists to overtake them – something highlighted in a video from cycling journalist and author Carlton Reid in a 2015 film featuring Chris Boardman and senior driving driving instructor Blaine Walsh.
In fact, so impressed was the government with the video, called SPACE, that it planned to distribute an edited version to all driving instructors throughout the country – as well as turning a shorter version of it into a public information film.
> Government to ensure all driving instructors watch Chris Boardman SPACE for cycling film (+ video)
You can find the Department for Transport’s full consultation document on the proposed changes to the Highway Code here.
Launched yesterday, the consultation runs until midnight on 27 October 2020.
48 thoughts on “UK government sets out to kill off the cycling chain gang”
No need to ride single file
No need to ride single file when it’s not safe to overtake though, and drivers are notoriously bad at judging when a safe overtake is possible.
This article is just click
This article is just click bait.
When have you ever ridden in
When have you ever ridden in a chain gang and ridden MORE than two abreast. In fact if you’re in a chain gang and somehow riding three abreast at any point you’re probably not going quick enough!
The problem I see here is that it might not be clear to divers under which circumstances cyclists could be expected or required to ride single file or two abreast. That includes the police who I think would benefit from clarification on these laws given the inconsisten policing across different forces.
BadgerBeaver wrote:
It’s not a law.
” ride in single file when
” ride in single file when drivers wish to overtake”
How are cyclists, especially in a group, supposed to make this decision while dodging potholes, watching side turns etc etc?
What if the driver doesn’t wait until they’ve singled out? It takes time to communicate and each rider to react and slip into a gap, while the group doubles in length.
And it should not be based on the driver’s “wish to overtake” – people wish to do all sorts of things – the responsibility must be on them to do so safely!
What a ridiculous thing to put in an official document.
Is this just bad wording ?
Is this just badly worded?
Maybe what is intended is that cyclists should go into single file if a driver cannot overtake the group due to the width of the road, but would be able to do so if they singled out.
As has been pointed out, overtaking a group riding two abreast is often easier than if they were in a line.
This definitely needs a rethink, hopefully British Cycling are on the case.
These sorts of things tend to
These sorts of things tend to be worded ambiguously when possible, it creates some legal wiggle room for an at-fault party to build a defence. What we need is some Dutch strict-liability law if we’re to truly experience a cycling golden age, not this mumbo-jumbo
Nick T wrote:
Not sure there’s any ambiguity over liability here. “But they were cycling alongside each other when I wanted to overtake. It’s not my fault I knocked them out of the way!” is not likely to be a valid defence…
This particular HC rule (note, it’s a suggestion not a law) is aiming, however poorly, to promote mutual consideration between groups of road users. It’s not transferring liability to or from any particular party.
The wording places the onus
The wording places the onus of ensuring safety during an overtake onto the cyclist rather than the driver
Nick T wrote:
Could be seen that way. However, there are other specific rules around overtaking that firmly place the obligation on the overtaker not to come into conflict with other road users.
alexls wrote:
thats what makes it ambiguous
Nick T wrote:
But this is a rule for cyclists. “Move over if you think it’s safe”. Nowhere does it say to a driver “If a cyclist moves over then it’s safe for you to overtake” – that comes under the overtaking rules, and the minimum distance guidelines. It may be ambiguous, but in no way does it pass any liability to the cyclist.
The wording is “You should …
The wording is “You should … ride in single file when drivers wish to overtake and it is safe to let them do so”, the cyclist is “letting” the driver overtake when the cyclist considers it to be safe. If you don’t think a lawyer will use this as a loophole to get their client off the hook you’ll be sorely mistaken
Adding comments here is fine.
Adding comments here is fine… as long as you’ve commented on the consultation. Get on there and respond accordingly!
put it in a document or law
put it in a document or law all you want, if i want to ride next to someone and chat to them i will do. It makes no difference to anyone behind wishing to overtake, as long as I’m not across the middle of the road then they wont have an issue with me, because they’ll be in the other lane anyway. If they want me single file that only means they will be overtaking when oncoming traffic is still ”oncoming” meaning if i swerve, or have to go round a pothole, there’s no room for me to do so, due to the huge size of most cars now. The other lane is for overtaking, the lane I am cycling in is for me to cycle on, not for you to push me out the way in. If they do make it law, then the next time i come up behind a driver stuck in a traffic queue and with nobody in the seat beside them, i will tell them they need to get single file, because i wish to overtake. If they don’t immediately cut their car in half and move into single file so i can pass, i shall abuse them for breaking the law.
I didn’t even realise that
I didn’t even realise that groups of cyclists rode two abreast.
Surely there is one group of cyclists riding single file positioned towards the left of the lane, and there is another group of cyclists in single file wishing to overtake them using the right side of the lane, but not making much headway due to their similar top speed
took me a second to get that
took me a second to get that but yes, that could be argued back very easily, how would you even prove the riders were together and not simply trying to overtake a different group of riders?
david rides wrote:
On any road with lanes wider than 2m, it’s perfectly possible to safely pass (at 30mph) whilst not being completely in the other lane. Most roads with bus routes are at least 6m carriageways, giving 3m per lane, meaning there’s room to safely straddle the lanes and pass a solo cyclist into the path of another vehicle – but not to pass two abreast.
“it makes no difference to anyone behind” is the kind of unhelpful attitude that just winds everyone up.
You’re assuming that the
You’re assuming that the cyclist isn’t riding anywhere near the middle of the lane then? As would be their right
RobD wrote:
Of course I am! Are you being deliberately obtuse?
alexls wrote:
The highway code here is about to be changed with guidance that passing distance should be 1.5m and the cyclist should be 0.5m from the kerb. How on earth is it possible to manitain these distances without crossing completely into the other lane when the lanes are 2m wide?
As to stradding the line depsite the presence of oncoming traffic; in my experience this leads to the terrifying horn blast when cyclist and both cars are all aligned. The load horn blast at close proximity that suggests a car may suddenly deviate course towards me, or hit me from behind.
The cyclist should be 0.5m from the kerb, the car should be 1.5m from the cyclist. a car is about 1.9m wide, as is the other car. Assume the cars are also 0.5m from each other, and the furtherst car is 0.5m from the kerb. That needs a minimum total width of 6.8m, assuming the driver coming the other way is accomodating the pass, which they may not be.
This also assumes the 0.5m and 1.5m are taken to the bike wheel and not to the shoulders or handlerbars of the cylist (i.e the cylist has no width)
In reality the oncoming car is likely to be more than 0.5m from the kerb, and neither driver will be comfortable passing within 0.5m of an oncoming vehicle at a closing speed of 60mph plus
in fact the following study defines lane widths of <3.1m as tight https://www.cycleways.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2014/09/Influence-of-road-markings-lane-widths-and-driver-behaviour-on-proximity-and-speed-of-vehicles-overtaking-cyclists-DOI-10.1016j.aap_.2014.08.015.pdf lanes >3.75m as spacious and a range between as critical.
I would suggest that on roads narrower than 4m cyclists should ride single file, and on roads with lanes wider than 3.5m also. But on roads in between the overtaker should be using the other lane, and it should be free of traffic, meaning 2 abreast does not prevent a safe overtake, but we know that single file encourages the dangerous squeeze through overtake, which you appear to be advocating.
wycombewheeler wrote:
Well, it’s not. But lanes aren’t 2m wide.
https://mocktheorytest.com/resources/how-wide-are-roads/
Excellent. So we’re agreed that on some carriageways it’s perfectly possible to safely overtake without completely crossing to the other lane whilst not having enough room for a cycle lane on that carriageway.
These would be single-lane roads in that case, and so it doesn’t matter whether the cyclists are single file in the centre of the road or two abreast, since there’s no room to pass in anything other than a ‘city car’
alexls wrote:
I agree that, on the right roads, I’m not too bothered about being passed by a car straddling lanes. BUT, if you’re straddling the lanes, that presupposes there’s no oncoming [car] traffic. In which case, why not go the whole hog and move fully into the other lane? The problem with riding single file in a group is that allows / encourages drivers to squeeze past without even straddling.
Quote:
Alexls can’t add. 1.5m overtaking clearance + 0.5m cyclist’s kerb clearance already adds up to 2m. So even without allowing any width at all for the actual cyclist, the overtaking car must already be fully over into the other lane at 2m lane width. Given the car itself is 1.8m wide…
Seriously, is it even worth arguing with this person?
alexls wrote:
Let’s do the math:
a) Kerb to bike 60cm,
b) Bike width 60cm,
c) Car to bike clearance 1.5m,
d) Car width 1.8m,
e) Car to oncoming car clearance 1.0m,
f) Oncoming car width 1.8m
g) Oncoming car to kerb clearance 60cm;
Total 7.90m
Available carriageway width 6.00m
Deficit 1.90m
How’s that going to work?
Probably 1.0m of the difference is going to come out of the 1.5m overtaking clearance, giving a 50cm close pass. That’s assuming they skim the other 90cm out of the clearance to the oncoming car whilst squeezing the cyclist and the oncoming car both into the kerbs.
No surprises then – that’s exactly what happens – it’s pre-programmed by the assumption that the lane does not belong to the cyclist.
How can we possibly know
How can we possibly know whether a driver wishes to overtake? Are we suddenly all telepaths?
They all do. Even when you
They all do. Even when you are riding at the speed limit.
Its a proposed change, and clearly the intent is to foster cooperation among road users and to leave it to your own judgement of what is safe. Keep in mind that as such it’s not a black and white rule, and is balanced by other proposed changes to the Highway Code such as the heirarchy of road users.
I’ll add to that, even when i
I’ll add to that, even when i’m cycling above the speed limit they still want to overtake! (MGIF)
Lot’s of debate on this in
Lot’s of debate on this in the comments but no one seems to acknowledge that very few drivers follow the highway code fully. I doubt that the arseholes who I’m scared of have ever read it.
If you want real change then try building proper infrasturcture, enforcing the law and dilligently prosecuting those who kill and maim us.
Which is why I think they
Which is why I think they should enforce a 10 year limit on licenses and every 10 years drivers have to pass the written and practical tests. That way it is keeping drivers up to date on the Highway Code and also on their driving standards.
I passed mine with a practical and 5 questions in the car park 25 years ago. My late dad learnt on farm equipment and army lorries and I assume some extra test to get a license and held it for 70 years without any updates needed. I don’t see why most other driving needs regular renewals but car and vans don’t.
Must. Should . . . . . Does
Must. Should . . . . . Does it make any difference?
Have a little guess at which
Have a little guess at which of the two is a legal requirement
BIG difference
BIG difference
Surely “…and it is safe to
Surely “…and it is safe to let them do so” is the massive caveat that leaves the decision up to cyclists.
Largely a non-story. The dogmatic on both sides will continue to do what they always have, those of us who ride/drive with a bit of common sense will continue to do so.
So they’ve revised a code
So they’ve revised a code where:
1. we can’t fathom its actual meaning – due to its twists and turns and vagueness – let alone can we agree whether it is just.
2. the people who most need to read and adhere to it won’t bother.
3. it can be taken either way depending on one’s point of view
4. sensible people will carry on just sensibly figuring things out for themselves
I hope they didn’t spend a lot of time on this then
Slightly confused by this
Slightly confused by this article – as is pointed out, the Highway Code currently says cyclists should ride in single file on busy roads.
The proposed revised wording is therefore an improvement. However, as I have pointed out before (and indeed as others have pointed out in the comments) I will be responding to the consultation to suggest that the revised wording is more along the lines of:
Cyclists should ride in single file if doing so would help drivers overtake safely. On many roads, it is safer to cycle two abreast.
I don’t know if the current proposal is trying to say that but is poorly worded, or if they actually mean it how it is.
How about:
How about:
Where opportunities for traffic behind to safely pass a cyclist in the centre of the lane may be limited, cyclists should consider riding single file to the left when it is safe and convenient to do so. When riding in groups, it may be safer, and more convenient for those passing, to ride two abreast.
?
I think putting the word ‘consider’ in there emphasises that it’s a matter of considerate road use, rather than a matter of obligation, and the ‘safe and convenient’ bit underlines that it’s the cyclist’s choice when is an appropriate time to move over (bearing in mind that it’s not just about the safety of the pass, but also the safety of the manouvre itself, and of riding in that part of the road (which might be full of potholes, for example).
Would a chaingang of say 12
Would a chaingang of say 12 cyclists be classed as one vehicle? If so then
Rule 164
Large vehicles. Overtaking these is more difficult.
Make sure that you have enough room to complete your overtaking manoeuvre before committing yourself. It takes longer to pass a large vehicle. If in doubt do not overtake
https://www.highwaycodeuk.co.uk/using-the-road-overtaking.html#:~:text=Overtaking%20%28162%20to%20169%29%20162.%20Before%20overtaking%20you,safe%20and%20legal%20to%20do%20so.%20You%20should.
Toorie wrote:
No.
So single file in a line of
So single file in a line of half a dozen or more riders riding a foot or two from the centre line will be fine then? Good to know drivers will all now show respect when I’m riding in the middle of the lane with others then…
what a mess this HC all is
what a mess this HC all is
Can you imagine if airspace were controlled by such a contorted code. Hope the same team is not revising that next
Oh it is. And not just
Oh it is. And not just airspace but what you can fly, in what light and weather, how much weight you can take, even the technology you are allowed to use – magneto ignition has endured simply due to certification.
But the rules of the air have for decades had the hierarchy of type that we need. Powered aircraft must give way to gliders who must give way to balloons, for example.
We are not going to get perfection, but we can get improvement and hopefully something based on principles rather than lots of individual cases which can’t cover everything. Though I must say the convoluted rules for covid 19 don’t give me much hope.
The argument is that riding
The argument is that riding two abreast limits the opportnities for safe overtaking, leading to motorists’ frustration and enmity. I’ll try to put some numbers to it.
I’ll assume a cyclist is 60cm wide and needs 60cm clearance to the kerb or between riders two abreast. A car is 1.8m wide and needs the same 60cm kerbside clearance, and 1m clearance between oncoming cars. Overtaking clearance to a cyclist is 1.5m below 30mph, 2.0m from 30mph and above.
A single carriageway two-lane road is between 5.5m and 7.3m wide.
It becomes apparent that a car is never able to safely overtake a bicycle when there is oncoming traffic – the other lane has to be clear to allow safe overtaking, even for a single cyclist, even for the widest carriageway. To assume otherwise would require a 30mph road wider than a two-lane motorway.
So looking at the minimum width of carriageway required to safely overtake, with no oncoming cars, there are four cases:
Single Cyclist
<30mph = 5.1m
>30mph = 5.6m
Two Abreast
<30mph = 6.3m
>30mph = 6.8m
So cyclists should go single file on urban roads (30mph limit) below 6.3m width and fast roads below 6.8m width. Otherwise they are preventing cars safely overtaking even when there are no oncoming vehicles. Whereas on roads below 5.1m/5.6m cyclists should take the entire lane in the hope of preventing vehicles overtaking, and move over where there is an overtaking place (eg a layby etc).
[i]None of this seems remotely practical.[/i] It would be far better if the rule was clear and simple – on two lane carriageways, motorists overtaking cyclists MUST only do so by moving fully into the other lane. The cyclists can then decide for themselves what level of comfort they require between themselves and the lane marker, cycling singly or two abreast as they please. And motorists will soon come to prefer that cyclists do go two abreast.
Narrow single lane rural roads, paradoxically, usually have a 60mph limit. These are often 5.5m wide or less, so not wide enough to either pass or overtake a even single cyclist. Again, the cyclists should take the lane (two abreast), and move over at a passing place, exactly as cars do.
All in, I do wonder at the credibility the government attaches to the 1.5/2.0m overtaking clearances – the implication is that cars only overtake a cyclist when the other lane is clear, and stop grumbling about cyclist two-abreast. Without a massive education programme that is simply not going to happen.
One important point. An
One important point. An average car is 1.8m wide by manufacturers standard measurements. These DON’T include wing mirrors.
As a result your minimum widths are potentially off by 15-40cm depending on what allowances you make for wing mirrors size and overlap… (For example it may be possible for the wing mirror to overhang the opposite side of the road as their is nothing for it to hit…)
Without a massive education
Without a massive education programme that is simply not going to happen.
A massive education programme for the police will be necessary first!
It’s amazing what a
It’s amazing what a provocative, click-bait headline can do. 91 comments – make that 92.
These changes have been
These changes have been declared as improving safety for people cycling.
This is trying to make things easier for cars to pass. There is only one small change for those driving cars. Maybe 10 more rules for people on bikes. Trojan horse.
https://www.bournemouthecho
https://www.bournemouthecho.co.uk/news/18620714.illegally-parked-cars-cause-delays-morebus-services/ so, the bus drivers became stuck behind two abreast cyclists? right o , gotcha.