Leading rides on busy roads.

[pedals2slowly]

Should there be a need to single out the outer rider drops back into the space created by the inner rider in row 2 who has dropped back. A decent group knows and does this. It was banged into club newbies from day one. Of course now we have people who learn to ride on the www and by watching racing on telly. Not a clue.

One thing the www has revealed is where clubs differ and whether the right rider overtakes or drops back when singling out is another thing like which way is "car up" - even long-established decent clubs disagree!

The only clubs that differ are ones that have been created by the www readers.
Up yer bum, down yer pants - antiquated. For safety's sake with new and mislead riders use 'car front' or 'car back'
Outside riders always drop back, no discussion.

[mjr]

The only clubs that differ are ones that have been created by the www readers.
Up yer bum, down yer pants - antiquated. For safety's sake with new and mislead riders use 'car front' or 'car back'
Outside riders always drop back, no discussion.

One example disproves that: "if vehicle coming from behind, outside rider should move to the front of the inside rider"
https://www.addiscombe.org/club-code-of-conduct/ club established 1920s IIRC. I doubt their founders read the www!

It seems like a lot of the www era startups have copied their ride etiquette guides from somewhere because loads contain the exact same words for an incorrect blanket claim that "The standard procedure is for the outside rider to drop back behind the inside rider." There is no standard for this. They should understand why to do things, not claim adherence to fictional standards!

[Marcus Aurelius]

Widen the bus to shorten the bus. Use it when appropriate, single up on narrow stretches, or sections with blind bends. As for calls, traditionally the only time an encroaching vehicle was an issue, was on a hill. So “car up” was for a car coming up the hill, “car down” was a car coming down the hill, as these were the times when the speed differential between rider and vehicle caused maximum risk. To stop any confusion, the clarification that “car up” was a vehicle coming up, from behind, whilst the group were facing up, and “car down” was a vehicle coming down the hill from in front of the riders. The reason “car up” and “car down” became the accepted norm, was that “car up” / “car down” gives 3 bits of info, with 2 words, and 2 syllables ( there’s a vehicle, it’s behind / in front, it’s moving towards the group, which is also why “car back” / “car front” shouldn’t be used, as ‘back’ and ‘front’ don’t carry the same inference about the vehicles relative motion) and the info is delivered as quickly as possible. It’s quicker to say “car up / down” than “car behind / in front ”. Also, because the letter r, and u, ‘flow’ ( it can make 2 words sound like 1 )where as r, and b don’t flow, so “car back” can’t be compressed to sound like one word, and that time saving could be critical. Bad calls / non existent calls, are one of my pet peeves when leading a ride ( of which I have, many times ) Particularly when someone behind me, calls “car up”, and they are referring to a vehicle approaching me, from in front ( this happens a lot ). Firstly I know, I can see it, and I’m the one closest to it, secondly, if someone behind me calls “car up” I’m assuming there’s possibly a vehicle is approaching from behind me as well, and I’d rather not have to glance backwards unnecessarily, whilst I have a vehicle approaching from in front.

[pedals2slowly]

They should understand why to do things, not claim adherence to fictional standards!

Yes OK the 'standard' is fictional. If we argue about it endlessly there never will be a standard.

The main reason singling out is performed ONLY by outside riders dropping behind inside riders is for safety.
The command 'single out' is dangerous if it has two meanings, misinterpretation could cause some riders to do one and other do another, the result being chaos in a situation where we are trying to make cycling in a group less hazardous.
The movement has to be simple and precise, especially when moving in a tight shoulder to shoulder formation.
Another reason is that decelerating and moving in is easier than accelerating and moving in.

The CUK Club Leader Resource wording is ambiguous:-
'Single/Single out. Meaning - Move into a single file. Comment - Riders allow gaps to form so that those in the right hand file can merge into the left'

There should be a standard.
Anyone disagree?

[pedals2slowly]

Bad calls / non existent calls, are one of my pet peeves when leading a ride ( of which I have, many times ) Particularly when someone behind me, calls “car up”, and they are referring to a vehicle approaching me, from in front ( this happens a lot ).

Newcomers have no idea what 'Car-up' or 'Car-down' mean and are frequently transpose them, or maybe they have listened to another version of a non-existent standard.
Hence far safer to shout 'Car-front' or 'Car-back', speed of delivery is the same.

CUK guide uses 'car-up' and 'car-down'
More work needed!

[mjr]

There should be a standard.
Anyone disagree?

Yes. Someone will. That's why there is no standard. Some club always think they know best because they're an older/newer/different club. The only way to make it stick would be some law or court ruling, but that's a level of state interference that I hope we never suffer.

[pedals2slowly]

The only way to make it stick would be some law or court ruling, but that's a level of state interference that I hope we never suffer.

Absolutely no reason why CUK/BC/DoT shouldn't extend the National Cycling Standards/Bikeability to include group riding, and from what some have being writing here, and what I see when riding with, and leading groups it would be more than useful.
This forum is after-all for professional NSI's so we'd all agree that safe riding standards are important, no matter what a person's cycling activity.

[pjclinch]

The only way to make it stick would be some law or court ruling, but that's a level of state interference that I hope we never suffer.

Absolutely no reason why CUK/BC/DoT shouldn't extend the National Cycling Standards/Bikeability to include group riding

While CUK/BC might contribute as stakeholders, what's in the NS isn't up to them: it's a DfT and now Driver & Vehicle Standards Agency. Bikeability is down to the Bikeability Trust on behalf of the DfT (and up here, Cycling Scotland, transport being devolved).

It's tricky where it might sit in a standard as while it's certainly a useful skill it doesn't really fit with the rest of the L2 & 3 content, which is about how a cyclist can negotiate roads. Riding in groups is certainly covered by sports coaching but it's not clear it has direct relevance to the NSCT as they currently stand. That's not to say I don't think they belong there at all, but it's not really "no brainer". There's also the pragmatic side that at L3, where this becomes more important, the instructor ratio would make it very hard to teach to a chain-gang size group.

What I'm getting it is it's probably a good thing to have in some syllabus somewhere, but not necessarily your basic NSCT. In Scotland at least, leading rides is a different qualification to a NS instructor.

Pete.

[mattheus]

Bad calls / non existent calls, are one of my pet peeves when leading a ride ( of which I have, many times ) Particularly when someone behind me, calls “car up”, and they are referring to a vehicle approaching me, from in front ( this happens a lot ).

Newcomers have no idea what 'Car-up' or 'Car-down' mean and are frequently transpose them, or maybe they have listened to another version of a non-existent standard.
Hence far safer to shout 'Car-front' or 'Car-back', speed of delivery is the same.

CUK guide uses 'car-up' and 'car-down'
More work needed!

I respectfully disagree.

It's only 4 words - takes no time at all to learn. Far better to learn the RIGHT way early. That is how teaching, training, coaching etc works.

[mjr]

The only way to make it stick would be some law or court ruling, but that's a level of state interference that I hope we never suffer.

Absolutely no reason why CUK/BC/DoT shouldn't extend the National Cycling Standards/Bikeability to include group riding, and from what some have being writing here, and what I see when riding with, and leading groups it would be more than useful.
This forum is after-all for professional NSI's so we'd all agree that safe riding standards are important, no matter what a person's cycling activity.

I've outlined the main reason why: CUK, BC and DfT do not all agree what is safe or what should be standard. CUK and BC disagree with each other on fundamental points and some of their affiliated groups disagree with them. There is no likelihood of a top down imposition of any one view, especially on the things BC and CUK disagree on.

For example, can you argue that "car up" meaning "car moving up the group" is more or less safe than meaning "car up ahead"? And then what about "car back" which I suspect is more widely understood but used by few?

[Marcus Aurelius]

Bad calls / non existent calls, are one of my pet peeves when leading a ride ( of which I have, many times ) Particularly when someone behind me, calls “car up”, and they are referring to a vehicle approaching me, from in front ( this happens a lot ).

Newcomers have no idea what 'Car-up' or 'Car-down' mean and are frequently transpose them, or maybe they have listened to another version of a non-existent standard.
Hence far safer to shout 'Car-front' or 'Car-back', speed of delivery is the same.

CUK guide uses 'car-up' and 'car-down'
More work needed!

“Car front” and “car back” don’t give you the third ( crucial ) bit of info, (what’s the vehicle doing). Hence the reason for the ( very much existent ) standard.

[pedals2slowly]

For example, can you argue that "car up" meaning "car moving up the group" is more or less safe than meaning "car up ahead"? And then what about "car back" which I suspect is more widely understood but used by few?

Agreed - precisely why 'Car-up' is not a sensible standard.

[pedals2slowly]

“Car front” and “car back” don’t give you the third ( crucial ) bit of info, (what’s the vehicle doing). Hence the reason for the ( very much existent ) standard.

Please explain why you need more information other than 'car-front' meaning a car is coming towards your front and 'car-back' meaning a car is coming towards your back?

As noted some people use car up to mean car in front.

'car-front' is unambiguous which is crucial for safety.

[Marcus Aurelius]

The only way to make it stick would be some law or court ruling, but that's a level of state interference that I hope we never suffer.

Absolutely no reason why CUK/BC/DoT shouldn't extend the National Cycling Standards/Bikeability to include group riding, and from what some have being writing here, and what I see when riding with, and leading groups it would be more than useful.
This forum is after-all for professional NSI's so we'd all agree that safe riding standards are important, no matter what a person's cycling activity.

I've outlined the main reason why: CUK, BC and DfT do not all agree what is safe or what should be standard. CUK and BC disagree with each other on fundamental points and some of their affiliated groups disagree with them. There is no likelihood of a top down imposition of any one view, especially on the things BC and CUK disagree on.

For example, can you argue that "car up" meaning "car moving up the group" is more or less safe than meaning "car up ahead"? And then what about "car back" which I suspect is more widely understood but used by few?

If you’re saying “ car up ahead” you’ve added another word, that could be a crucial time period, dependant on relative group / vehicle speed. Again, to say “ car back “ requires you to form the ‘plosive’ b, which interrupts the more flowing r-u sound. Try it, your lips don’t meet each other, until the ‘plosive’, p at the end of the phrase with “car up” which means you can achieve and sustain a relatively higher volume as well ( again, this could be crucial).

[Marcus Aurelius]

“Car front” and “car back” don’t give you the third ( crucial ) bit of info, (what’s the vehicle doing). Hence the reason for the ( very much existent ) standard.

Please explain why you need more information other than 'car-front' meaning a car is coming towards your front and 'car-back' meaning a car is coming towards your back?

As noted some people use car up to mean car in front.

'car-front' is unambiguous which is crucial for safety.

No, wrong, “car front” misses the crucial, implication of what the vehicle is doing relative to the group. I’ll quite happily ‘ball out’ an ‘experienced’ group who get that wrong. If it’s a more beginners oriented group, maybe not so much.