- 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
- Buyers Guides
- Features
- Forum
- Recommends
- Podcast
news
Essex motorbike cop consults Highway Code (YouTube still, user Paul Clayton).JPGVideo: Essex motorbike cop tells cyclists they mustn't ride two abreast - even after he consults Highway Code, which says they can
A cyclist has posted a video to YouTube showing an argument he and his riding partner had with an Essex Police motorbike officer who pulled them over and insisted they were breaking the law by not riding in single file.
The footage was uploaded to the video-sharing site yesterday by Paul Clayton, who was told by the officer at one point, "You are causing other road users to drive carelessly."
Essex Police Biker Argues the law with Cyclists by StanCardinalBCLion
Even after consulting a copy of the Highway Code, with it taking him several minutes to find the relevant section, the officer insists that the cyclists are endangering themselves and other road users by riding side by side, and takes down their details.
Rule 66 of the Highway Code says that cyclists "should never ride more than two abreast, and ride in single file on narrow or busy roads and when riding round bends."
Side by Side from carltonreid on Vimeo.
In August 2015, British Cycling policy advisor Chris Boardman teamed up with driving instructor Blaine Walsh for this video produced by cycling journalist and author Carlton Reid which explains that cyclists are allowed to ride two abreast.
> Video: Chris Boardman explains why cyclists can - and do - ride two abreast
Boardman said: "According to rule 66 in the Highway Code cyclists are advised to never ride more than two abreast. So, three’s out but riding side by side is fine.”
“Think of it like this,” he continued. “In your car, you have the driver’s seat and the passenger seat, that makes a car suitable for two people to travel next to each other. Cyclists riding next to each other are doing the same thing, maybe chatting just like you would do in a car.”
As we reported at the weekend, Derbyshire Police recently published road safety advice regarding cyclists and aimed at both people on bikes and, primarily, drivers of motor vehicles.
> Derbyshire Police launch website explaining how to drive around cyclists
On the subject of cyclists riding two abreast, the force said: "It may come as a surprise to most drivers but cyclists have as much right as drivers to take up the entire lane.
"You will often see cyclists riding side-by-side, and you, as a driver, may think they’re being selfish by doing so.
"But the fact is the cyclist is actually reducing the risk of having an accident; it’s the safest way for them to cycle, particularly if there’s a blind bend, a narrowing of the road, a high risk junction, pinch point or traffic lights ahead."
NB This story was amended at 2.50pm on 15 May 2017 to reflect that the video on YouTube has been made private.
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
- Rendel Harris 9 min 35 sec ago
WH RS-171 wheelset is currently £99 at Merlin Cycles, who also have the 105 mechanical groupset for £550. You're paying an awfully big chunk of the...
- Hirsute 57 min 13 sec ago
I got fed up with my work trousers wearing out on the bum and being fine elsewhere. The final straw was catching the inside leg on the saddle and...
- FionaJJ 1 hour 24 min ago
For the purposes of investment then cycling for transport, that also keeps/get you fit should be prioritised. However, there's an argument that if...
- KDee 1 hour 27 min ago
Yeah, that fits. Already seen the helmets, shoes etc. rebrand as Trek. Scott are pretty similar with their Scott and Syncros branding.
- eburtthebike 1 hour 44 min ago
Yes, where are the same figures for drivers, Telegraph?
- Rendel Harris 2 hours 26 min ago
Well with wand protection they don't even need tools, as various idiots rapidly discovered during the pandemic in London, the wands can just be...
- notMyRealName 2 hours 27 min ago
Given his demonstrated lack of judgement, I can't help but think that the Gran Fondo would have been safer without him in it.
- Pub bike 2 hours 33 min ago
It doesn't. Here are a few more helpful suggestions to make society just work better:...
- mdavidford 2 hours 47 min ago
Unfortunately, the AI is more likely to look at the weight of people expressing that opinion and considered it gold standard truth....
Add new comment
79 comments
Of course some vehicles are three and four abreast. There is in fact no upper limit on how many abreast you can ride as cyclists, as long as you aren't blocking the road. For example there's a section of what was the M10 that could easily manage four abreast, without even using a whole lane - https://goo.gl/maps/Tt9q6Cw2K9u
I got a bit bored - I didn't know whether to side with the guy whose cadence was 15 all the way through that conversation, or the policeman who couldn't get a word in edgeways with Mr Cocky.*
*I know that cyclists can ride two abreast.
Whilst mr cocky was irritating, it's worrying that the policeman couldn't grasp the simple phrase "more than two abreast". I mean, seriously.
You didn't define 'busy', did you?
Define 'other traffic' being 'present'. Is that 3 other cars within 100m, say? Is it when a Ford Model T could reasonably be expected to feature in the same black-and-white photograph as you on your bike?
In other words: Fuck Off, Willo.
I'm used to ordinary cops all hating people on bikes. But a bike cops hating people on bikes... That's a new one.
Are you able to grasp the simple phrase "ride in single file on narrow or busy roads". I mean seriously.
Have a nice evening Dave ... no need to get annoyed ... at least you made me laugh, thanks. This does highlight how difficult it is to write traffic regulations so they can't be misinterpreted.
I know I am.
Define 'busy', please. And try not to refer to the 1930s this time.
If you'd like to present your argument for why the 'intent' may have changed, then please do.
Previous sarcastic comment about mind control over motorists aside:
I can sort of see where the officer is coming from. I think we should recognise the fact that he has almost certainly attended many road traffic incidents, seen mangled victims and dealt with situations that are exceedingly distressing, maybe even had to visit relatives of deceased to break the news, so personally I'm always prepared to give the emergency service personnel a big measure of respect. Police motorcyclists are highly trained and I can assure you will outride pretty much any wannabe TT racer out there, effortlessly.
The problem for this officer is that he is not a cyclist. He can see a situation that rings wrong from his experience, enough to take action, but the Highway Code and the Road Traffic Act applicable to the sections concerning cyclists do not back up his gut instinct that the cyclists are putting themselves in danger. The cyclists have done nothing wrong, even if you drill down to the pertinent sections of the road traffic act the test becomes "falls far below the standard expected of a competent and responsible cyclist" or similar wording. I consider British Cycling , Chris Boardman etc to fulfil that role and they say 2 abreast is safer.
Personally, and mostly because I'm generally working too hard to chat, I'd have been single file if riding with a buddy at that point, looking to get off that road and somewhere more interesting as soon as possible. If in a group of 4 or more then double up would be better, but that is just my opinion. Both options are acceptable, both options have pros and cons from the safety aspect, both options are entirely legal and appropriate.
Probably just unfortunate choice of phrasing, but if the Officer is genuinely seeing motorists driving carelessly around the cyclists then he should be directing his attention to that and not to the cyclists who were doing nothing wrong.
I can sort of see it too. But that actually makes it worse. It reminds me of people who, when hearing that you're going to cycle home from $SOCIAL_OCCASION express their concern as to whether you will be alright. Meanwhile they jump into their high-kinetic-energy-vehicle for which they barely passed the test. In other words, at absolute best, the officer is being a patronizing git. And that's giving him a massive benefit of the doubt.
Are they though? This video suggests that the training has not stuck with at least this one: not knowing the Highway Code when your job is riding around and interpreting it is a huge problem.
When passing or overtaking pedestrians, cyclists or animals give them plenty of room
HC 1931 edition.
Plenty, whilst still open to interpretation sounds better in some way.
Zebra's didn't exist before 1949 - hold the front page!
I would suggest that Essex Police remove this Officer from his role on the Road Policing Unit and get him back to mundane duties. As a member of the RPU I would expect him to have a good knowledge of road traffic law & the Highway Code. I would also expect as a Motorcyclist to understand why vulnerable road users position themselves as they do.
Also his attitude stinks, however the attitude of the cyclists and their comments don't help.
The cyclists might have read the highway code, but they don't know the first law of authority: 1) authority never backs down.
Good on them for not being cowed by this silly sod though! Resorting to the "take your details" intimidation tactic to try to win a lost argument was particularly pathetic! The copper is old enough to know better but I suspect a long career of being pushy with the public in a position of authority has taught him the bullying blustering habit.
I'd have found it hard not to just say sorry and take his lecture.
It's almost as if plod ain't aware that stuff gets filmed these days. What a tool.
Actually, I use a mirror......
yeah, this explains a lot
It's been a funny day: the tories going against everything they've done over the past 50 years by saying that they will give more rights to workers instead of taking them away, and now a traffic policeman who doesn't know the Highway Code or the law. Why exactly is he a traffic cop? Perhaps a lengthy stint directing traffic might encourage him not to stop law-abiding cyclists, and to consider his competence for the job, if his boss hasn't already.
Perhaps tomorrow might be a little less bizarre.
As mentioned previously (and generally overlooked by most subsequent posts), rule 66 states that we should ride in single file on busy roads and when going around corners. If this video is a quiet road then the police officer is wrong and if it's busy then he is right.
Define "busy" (one of the other comments on here said "whenever there are any cars", which is plainly ludicrous).
Actually, I don't think it is ludicrous ... the highway code was first published in 1931 ... how many cars do you think were on the road back then? If the highway code had stated that cyclists should 'never' ride two-abreast, you would be committing an offense even on an otherwise deserted road and that is clearly silly, so instead it says to ride single file on 'busy' roads. I think the definition of what constitutes a 'busy' road is what has become blurred through the years. A busy road in the 1930s...
Great West Road - Middlesex - 1930s.jpg
First published in 1931, and been revised several times since then - most recently in March this year, and four updates last year. The HC isn't stuck in some between the wars utopia, the 1970s maybe (I've not seen an over the shoulder yellow reflector belt jobbie since then).
Riding three abreast is not of itself illegal either. Rule 66 is a SHOULD not a MUST, so is guidance not law. You could potentially be considered to be breaking some other law by doing so, but that would depend on circumstances.
I completely agree! On a similar note, I am freaked out by the fact that this document that was created in 1931 (and certainly never adapted since) mentions Zebra Crossings (Rule 195 for example) when they did not even exist until 1949! It must use some kind of magic
Yes, it is fortunate for Willo...er...bikelikebike...er...nbrus's...argument that the document has in no way been regularly revised, and that has been frozen in aspic since its 1931 inception.
Just for kicks I went looking for a copy of the 1931 HC frozen in aspic and found one ( https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Page%3AThe_Highway_Code_1931.djvu/14 ). No mention of "busy" in the riding two abreast rule, so what constitutes a busy road in the 1930s is irrelevant.
The entire text of the HC 1931 edition is here:
https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/The_Highway_Code_(1931)
Oh you and your facts! Spoiling a good, old-fashioned exchange of prejudices, assumptions and speculation.
Why did I read your reply in Professor Farnsworth's voice?
futurama-season-2-8-xmas-story-naked-farnsworth-bender-fry-amy-leela-hermes-dr-zoidberg.jpg
Here is a quote from that first link...
"Make the passage of other traffic wishing to overtake you easier by moving into single file except on very broad roads."
Seems to imply that cyclists should never cycle two-abreast when other traffic is present unless the road is wide enough to allow it. That was pretty clear, so not sure why the wording was changed as it isn't as clear now, but if the intent is the same then the new wording does seem to imply that a 'busy' road is one where other traffic is present.
On another note, I've just come back from a bike ride with a friend and I was riding two-abreast for a short time to talk to him ... I got the horn blared at me by some irate ignoramus in a car behind me who then shouted "single file" out the window as he overtook when we passed a restriction point on the road. He couldn't have overtook us even in single file so I don't know what his problem was. I don't normally cycle two-abreast, but did briefly today.
bet the upset driver was two abreast with his invisible chum. 1 driver takes up almost exactly the same space as 4 cyclists riding 2 by 2. Who is hogging the road really?
Well, at least he saw you, and being two abreast made it impossible even to try to overtake. Which is why we do it on narrow roads when overtaking would be dangerous.
Pages