2 Abreast cycling is not safe.

[beany_bot]

I've been dragged into yet ANOTHER argument about this and have just had enough.
So I made an illustration to explain my point.

As a cyclist and a motorist I hate riders riding two abreast, and further hate it when we claim "its better for motorists because they don't have as far to overtake". It is very damaging for us cyclists and I will explain why.

We constantly (and rightly) demand that cars pass us at a safe distance. Quite right.
Yet by riding 2 abreast we suddenly say that this is no longer important.

I have illustrated below what I mean.
When I am driving a car behind 2 abreast cyclists I simply will not pass them. Ever. For the reasons in the graphic below.

I don't understand how so many people claim "cars should give me 5/6 feet" etc and then also claim they should be able to ride 2 abreast and cars will be able to get past.

Illustration.



And this image from the highway code itself, How could this be possible is riding 2 abreast?



I know the haters will comes, and I will be attacked. but I am sick of the hypocrisy with us cyclists over this issue.
By telling cars it's OK to overtake 2 abreast. You just tell them that it's ok to give the same distance to ALL riders. (which would be a squeeze past when riders are in primary).

[PH]

In your third diagram - don't the riders like each other, or have you airbrushed the riders between them out? Abreast sort of means next to each other.
Also, you haven't drawn a very realistic road width, compare it to the one in the HC photo. If it's single track it'd probably be a bit narrower and not safe to overtake, or if it's two lanes it'll be a good bit wider.
Like this:


Lastly, though it's at the riders discretion, the inside rider when two abreast is often closer to the edge than when riding singled out.

[david7591]

The pragmatic application of common sense and courtesy for other road users by cyclists and motorists alike can and should avoid any problems arising.

If cyclists are making it difficult for a motorist to safely overtake by riding two abreast, then they should temporarily assume a single file. If the road is narrow, and it is not safe to overtake the motororist should wait patiently until it is safe to do so. Hardly rocket science.

Please excuse the lack of diagrams illustrating the above point!

[hondated]

I've been dragged into yet ANOTHER argument about this and have just had enough.
So I made an illustration to explain my point.

As a cyclist and a motorist I hate riders riding two abreast, and further hate it when we claim "its better for motorists because they don't have as far to overtake". It is very damaging for us cyclists and I will explain why.

We constantly (and rightly) demand that cars pass us at a safe distance. Quite right.
Yet by riding 2 abreast we suddenly say that this is no longer important.

I have illustrated below what I mean.
When I am driving a car behind 2 abreast cyclists I simply will not pass them. Ever. For the reasons in the graphic below.

I don't understand how so many people claim "cars should give me 5/6 feet" etc and then also claim they should be able to ride 2 abreast and cars will be able to get past.

Illustration.



And this image from the highway code itself, How could this be possible is riding 2 abreast?



I know the haters will comes, and I will be attacked. but I am sick of the hypocrisy with us cyclists over this issue.
By telling cars it's OK to overtake 2 abreast. You just tell them that it's ok to give the same distance to ALL riders. (which would be a squeeze past when riders are in primary).

Before you get a flood of contrary opinions BB I,m with you on this one. To me sorry but it just seems bad road manners and irritates drivers even though the Highway Code permits it.

[horizon]

AIUI the key point is that the car overtakes on the other side of the road and doesn't attempt to overtake in between the cyclist and oncoming traffic. The closeness or otherwise also matters but not as much IMV. For this reason cycling two abreast isn't a problem. My guess is that drivers complain because they believe that it has prevented them overtaking when in fact they should not have done anyway.

BTW I presume no driver has been trained in this regard, it isn't practised in lessons, it isn't tested and it isn't prescribed in the Highway Code. Yet most drivers seem to claim to to know an awful lot about it.

[gaz]

I've been dragged into yet ANOTHER argument about this and have just had enough.

So I made an illustration to explain my point.
...

Interesting opening. It appears to me that you haven't had enough and are looking for further discussion, although hopefully not another argument.

Rule 66
You should
...
never ride more than two abreast, and ride in single file on narrow or busy roads and when riding round bends
...

This is a recommendation, not a legal requirement. "Narrow" and "Busy" are subjective terms not defined in the Highway Code.

The pragmatic application of common sense and courtesy for other road users by cyclists and motorists alike can and should avoid any problems arising.

+1.

[tatanab]

Can you guess where this quote is taken from?

If riding two abreast, move into single file as soon as it is safe for the motorist to overtake. Don't ride more than two abreast on the road.

It is from DfT guidance for horse riders. http://think.direct.gov.uk/horses.html So horse riders are advised to single up when a safe overtake is possible, yet cyclists are expected to instantly go to single file. Indeed, I seem to recall that in horse rider circles, 2 abreast riding is recommended for safety.

[NUKe]

It is situation dependent as to whether to cycle 2 abreast. it is not an either or, if its wide A road then 2 a breast works plenty of room to pass , 2 a breast is not much wider than single breast, if the cyclist are positioned correctly. if its a narrow road then single out to let cars past. There are all sorts of factors which change from ride to ride and from minute to minute. The thing is as a driver or as a cyclist is to pay attention to the conditions adapt and above all be respectful to all other road users and we will get a long fine.

[Tom Richardson]

As always:

it's the act of cycling two abreast that isn't safe and not the act of overtaking cyclists who are riding two abreast,

And the two people cycling side by side that are causing the obstruction and not the one person taking up even more road width in a motor vehicle,

And the poor beleaguered motorist seeking to correct the problems that other people cause them.

[Postboxer]

Depends on the road, similar to riding in primary/secondary, the pity is having to control other driver's cars for them as they seem incapable of controlling them themselves safely.

[Flinders]

Two cyclists in single file take longer to overtake than two abreast, so there are fewer opportunities to overtake. On a wide road, two abreast can be given as much clearance as one on a a narrower road, so it the road is wide, two abreast is better.

The problem in most cases is that drivers fail to give adequate clearance regardless of how many abreast cyclists are or the space available.


It really is as simple as that.

[Flinders]

As always:

it's the act of cycling two abreast that isn't safe and not the act of overtaking cyclists who are riding two abreast,

And the two people cycling side by side that are causing the obstruction and not the one person taking up even more road width in a motor vehicle,

And the poor beleaguered motorist seeking to correct the problems that other people cause them.

two abreast is completely safe if drivers drive safely, and is more considerate on wide roads as it is easier to overtake.
two people side by side are not automatically 'causing an obstruction', it depends entirely on the road in question
Motorists are not 'correcting problems other people cause' in any way whatsoever.

[BakfietsUK]

To call another human being an "obstruction" surely isn't respectful. A pile of bricks, a fallen tree an RTC or a broken down vehicle, for sure, they are obstructions.

Riding 2 abreast is hardly ever an issue if the riders are considerate. Whether it is safer than single is something so dependent on specific circumstances that it seems pointless to apply unequivocal blanket rules. I think the HC has it right, giving the responsibility to those on the road as it is happening.

[Si]

As always:

it's the act of cycling two abreast that isn't safe and not the act of overtaking cyclists who are riding two abreast,

And the two people cycling side by side that are causing the obstruction and not the one person taking up even more road width in a motor vehicle,

And the poor beleaguered motorist seeking to correct the problems that other people cause them.

two abreast is completely safe if drivers drive safely, and is more considerate on wide roads as it is easier to overtake.
two people side by side are not automatically 'causing an obstruction', it depends entirely on the road in question
Motorists are not 'correcting problems other people cause' in any way whatsoever.

I think that Tom was indulging in a little sarcasm there

[Tom Richardson]

I was summarising the commonly expressed presumptions of many road users. The title of the thread is 'cycling two abreast is not safe'. I can cycle alongside someone all day without any risk at all. It's only when someone comes along in a six foot wide car that I become dangerous.

The thread should be retitled 'failing to compensate for motorists behaviour (and comply with their presumptions) isn't safe'. Or more accurately: motoring isn't safe.