Active discussions

Meet the Other Phone. Flexible and made to last.

Meet the Other Phone.
Flexible and made to last.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

Talk
AIBU?

Share your dilemmas and get honest opinions from other Mumsnetters.

Original poster

Cyclists riding two or three abreast down country lanes.

198 replies

Roseforarose · 07/06/2015 14:55

AIBU that it's a bit of a hazard. We've just come back from a journey and there was a bike rally or something. We were trailing behind for ages from the ones who refused to get in single file. Surely for everyone's safety they should be in single file? What do you all think?

OP posts:
NorbertDentressangle · 07/06/2015 14:58

It's not illegal but yes, you're right, it can be a hazard on some roads.

InstitutionCode · 07/06/2015 15:01

I think they do it for safety.

A single one you'd overtake, three abreast you can't. Some people would go for the overtake when it wasn't safe to do so.

Cyclists who considerately ride very close to the kerb are the one most at risk, as drivers try to squeeze past.

It is annoying, but it's not really any different to being behind a slow moving vehicle of any other sort.

ScOffasDyke · 07/06/2015 15:02

Read the Highway code, which advocates cycling 2 abreast, and don't be so impatient

MehsMum · 07/06/2015 15:03

It's definitely not illegal, but it can be a very stupid thing to do on narrow bendy roads: with the best will in the world, if you're driving carefully round a blind bend in a car, you need somewhere to go if there's an oncoming vehicle and if there are bikes everywhere, taking up more width than a car or even a tractor, you are left with the hedge.

Mrsmorton · 07/06/2015 15:05

In my opinion, a country lane is a road which almost certainly has grass down the middle of it and you have to reverse for half a mile to get a passing place. A road with a white line down the middle isn't a country lane. An A road isn't a country lane, nor is a B road.
Riding two abreast means they are afforded the consideration they should be by drivers, that is to give them as much room as you would give a car and it stops people making stupid overtaking manoeuvres.

merrymouse · 07/06/2015 15:08

I know this can feel frustrating.

However, if you add up the time you spend behind cyclists and compare it to time spent in traffic jams and time spent giving way to cars when travelling down country lanes, time spent behind cyclists will be minimal.

Whether they are one or two abreast, it is safer for a cyclist to clearly occupy the road than risk being squeezed off it.

This is particularly relevant on a country lane where there may be no pavement to give them extra space, and where cars may be tempted to overtake where it isn't really possible.

Better a very slightly slower car journey than an injured or dead cyclist.

SunshineAndShadows · 07/06/2015 15:09

It's recommended. Cyclists 2 or 3 abreast are the same width as a car. You shouldn't be overtaking unless it's safe to do so by you crossing to the opposite lane just as you would when overtaking a car.

If cyclists were in single file they'd occupy more space along the road meaning you'd need more time to overtake safely (and thus making it more dangerous) and car drivers would be tempted to 'squeeze past' when it's unsafe to overtake thus making it more dangerous.

I'm always amazed (as a car driver) how many drivers are unfamiliar with basic road safety

NurNochKurzDieWeltRetten · 07/06/2015 15:16

It's fair enough when done for safety.

It's infuriating when done 12 feet from a beautiful, safe, separated from the road cycle path which cyclists refuse to use because they might have to slow down for kids cycling/ people pushing prams/ roller blades and want to be able to ride as fast as they can in a group of 20 without anyone slowing them down... Ah the irony/ hypocracy they refuse to see Angry:o

InstitutionCode · 07/06/2015 15:21

No, I don't agree with that at all NurNoch.

Cycle paths are meant for the kids and pootling cyclists you describe it would be dangerous for real cyclists, travelling at road speeds to use those paths. You wouldn't think it was a good idea for a car, even a slow car, to use a cycle path.

bikeandrun · 07/06/2015 15:24

Tell me where these safe, separate cycle lanes are and I will happily ride in them

ocelot41 · 07/06/2015 15:26

It's to protect cyclists from dangerous drivers who cut too close. Remember you have metal around you - they dont! I am afraid it just means you have to make yourself chill out and slow down

inominate · 07/06/2015 15:27

Also most segregated cycle lanes/paths are full of rubbish, broken glass, etc. and that never gets cleared away. Particularly in winter when cycle routes don't get gritted like roads they can be dreadful to ride on.

VivaLeBeaver · 07/06/2015 15:29

Blimey, we have this same thread about every month.

Either this or not using cycle lanes but I see someone has managed to get that arguement in already. Hmm

MistressChalk · 07/06/2015 15:30

NurNoch totally agree, just take a look at all these perfectly designed cycle lanes. How dare they not use them?!..... www.buzzfeed.com/jonstone/22-london-cycle-lanes-that-hate-cyclists#.unMXPl5gk

VivaLeBeaver · 07/06/2015 15:32

Here is a twat who's pissed off that a cyclist hasn't used the cycle lane.

Other cyclists who live in the area say that they also don't use the cycle path as every 100yds they'd have to give way to a side road.

I know it's hard for motorists to put themselves in a cyclists position but just imagine you're commuting five miles to work. You have the choice of a fairy well flowing route or a route where you have to stop every 100yds and wait. Honestly, honestly which would you choose?

If you say the cycle path you're a liar.

shinysparklythings · 07/06/2015 15:35

Tabu. It is recommended to cyclists to cycle two abreast. It is safer for cyclists. You need to chill out and be more patient.

VivaLeBeaver · 07/06/2015 15:36

This is on the cycle path on my route to work. There's 3 of them. With a cattle grid just after. So you approach the grid at an angle after completing the slalom. Not good when it's wet. Plus the cycle path is gravel so a lot slower than the road, and it's not as direct a route.

So yes I use the road. If councils employed people who actually cycle to design cycle lanes they might get more sensible cycle lanes.

Cyclists riding two or three abreast down country lanes.
NurNochKurzDieWeltRetten · 07/06/2015 15:36

Erm... Germany bike :o I have been told they exist in the UK in some areas (when once I pondered whether they were the reason German kids usually ride without stabilisers by age 4 - pavements in the UK all seem to be too sloping and pot holed and anyway often too busy with pedestrians for kids to cycle on in the absence of cycle paths).

Still think it's ironic that "serious road cyclists" can't be inconvenienced by having to slow for other cycle path users but other road users have to be inconvenienced to allow cyclists to choose the road rather than a cycle path - and it happens in poor weather too when realistically the cycle path is usually empty, but oftenless direct and a bit more meandering than the road.

People who walk down the road when there is a pavement, especially when it's dark, are even worse and must have a death wish - happens regularly too...

Of course the worst are car drivers who drive at 50km ph (35 mph) through all speed limits - whether it's a 30 kmph or a 100 kmph road... lots of them too...

50cc scooters do use the cycle paths sometimes but shouldn't obviously - they should be riding confidently in the middle of their lane causing traffic to back up behind them

polarpercy · 07/06/2015 15:37

What do you mean OP 'for everyone's safety'? How were you in any danger? They were riding defensively to ensure their safety around impatient drivers who misjudge the road/don't care.

iklboo · 07/06/2015 15:39

Highway Code rules for cyclists

'never ride more than two abreast, and ride in single file on narrow or busy roads and when riding round bends'

So if it's a standard sized road & straight route they can ride two abreast.

polarpercy · 07/06/2015 15:39

Nur my husband is capable of doing 25mph on his bike, there is no way I would want to meet him on a cycle path. He is regularly overtaken in a 20mph limit despite doing 20. All because people see cyclist and think 'must get ahead'.

He is a safe cyclist before it is assumed that because I wouldn't want to meet him on a cycle path he must be dangerous. I can't go that fast, so I use cycle paths where safe, as speed limits do not apply to cyclists (they can only be 'done' for cycling furiously fsvo furious) it is safer for serious road cyclists to be on the main road.

polarpercy · 07/06/2015 15:42

ikboo rule 66 is actually 'should' never ride and is not law.

MythicalKings · 07/06/2015 15:42

The cyclist was an absolute arsehole on that video. Provocative and stupid.

The driver was in the wrong to start with but ...

MistressChalk · 07/06/2015 15:42

NurNoch but even when there are shared cycle lanes, pedestrians often wander into them, bins are left in them, CARS PARK ON THEM to name a few reasons why they are often shit and little more than white paint. Cyclists have every right to use the road for travelling. I've yet to spend more than 10 minutes of my life stuck behind a cyclist whilst driving. I think anyone that impatient on the road shouldn't be behind the wheel of a tonne of metal...