Group of cyclists not letting cars past- is this legal?

[Serenity674]

Interested in whether this was legal. Was driving to my parents this morning, they live remotely so it was a single track country road, although not narrow, with wide verges on either side.

i came up behind a group of circa 20 cyclists, probably doing about 15-20mph and ended up stuck behind them for about 10 mins. Round the bends was fine and they actually went faster than I would have gone in my car but there were several very long straight stretches of road where I could have got up to 30-40 mph (it’s a NSL road) but they wouldn’t move to let me past, just rode 2 or 3 abreast taking up the whole road. They definitely knew I was there as the ones at the back kept looking behind at me.

i know the law says cyclists can ride 2 abreast and it’s actually safer as it means cars overtake them properly but surely this doesn’t apply regardless of the road? Were they just doing the safe thing or should they have let me past?

I am a horse rider so i am always on the side of passing more vulnerable road users safely but this just seemed like a bit of a dick move- or were they actually doing this for a reason I’m unaware of? If I was riding my horse on a road like this I would ride 2 abreast until the car slows down then move into single file to let them past.

True. But the tree doesn't jump red lights, speed along pavements, or deliberately ignore the safety of others. Cyclists may not often kill people, but they can cause accidents that kill or injure others. I used to work in Leeds a lot, and on multiple times a day would see cyclists ignore red lights to speed through a junction across oncoming traffic, and mount pavements at speed to avoid lights or slow moving traffic. And don't even get me started on the West Yorkshire cycle highway that cost £millions to build, which most cyclists ignored and still rode on the road! Yes there are idiots who drve cars. There are just as many idiots on cycles. Just because they don't (directly) kill people is not a reason to give them a pass and ignore the appalling behaviour of many cyclists. And whilst it isn't always true, I have noticed that there is a direct correlation between the amount of lycra and the poor behaviour of the cyclist.

It’s self preservation because there are too many aggressive and entitled drivers on the roads.

And cyclists can’t intuit which drivers are going to share the road and which will plough through them ( I’ve experienced a car just turning left across me as if he didn’t see me; it’s not a pretty experience).

The first response nailed it: sometimes you can’t use the road just as you want. There are other legal road users.

When driving a car, I much prefer cyclists to be out from the edge! They’re much more visible that way when coming round corners, near hedges and such on country roads; it’s easier to risk-assess the possibility of overtaking. I don’t want cyclists squeezing themselves into verges and hedges and ditches to encourage cars to come past.

Motorists do these things too. There are many more motorists than cyclists, so there are far more idiot drivers. Certainly, cyclists shouldn’t be given a pass for poor behaviour. But motor vehicles kill about the same amount of people in a day as cyclists do in a decade or more. Let’s say there were two criminal gangs operating in an area. One gang committed a few thousand robberies, the other, 1 robbery. I’m fairly certain the public would expect the police to devote 100% of their resources to catching the first gang. Only once they were brought to justice would they devote their attention to the second gang. That is obviously the best use of the police’s finite resources. The same should go for road safety.

Where I live there are country lanes, high hedges, and curves, frequent. Some clubs assume they are not much used of a Sunday, so they can be used for road racing. Even though one road is a major route and carries quite a bit of traffic, including at times HGV drivers who ignore notices.
One club sticks up notices in advance, which effectively means that I can't make a what's to me an important journey, and I know it, so I abandon it.
One doesn't. When one is behind a peleton doing peletonish things, one is stuck. Ten minutes makes the difference between arriving in time, or not. If I know, of course, I can leave earlier. Not otherwise. And the time I realised that I was not going to be on time, they did eventually pull into single file. Along this narrow winding road. For several hundred yards. There was no way I was going to be able to pass them safely, though the thought was appreciated. Fortunately there was a lane off the side which enables me to go home.
But why should my regular use of a Sunday be put in secondary place to theirs?

To be fair, I have been prevented by motorists jamming the M25 on the way to Brans Hatch, when they held the GP there. I didn't lose ten minutes, but the entire hour. The police let me use a gap in the centre to go home.

So to combat unsafe driving they perform unsafe cycling? Right. Yeah I dont buy it, they're just being dickheads making a post because they can. Driving and cycling on the wrong side of the is dangerous, I can't believe you're justifying it.

I'm a good driver, never had an accident, no points on my licence in 25 years. But I'm allowed to drive at 40 on a 60 road! And if cyclists don't like that, maybe they shouldn't cycle on fast roads.

I didn't dispute there aren't idiot motorists. But nobody should get a free pass. It isn't a race to the bottom. There's been plenty of times when I have been forced to do something unsafe because of the idiot cyclist who did something stupid.

I doubt that you'd feel the same way if it was your property that was stolen. You'd expect the police to give you equal attention because you want your stuff back.

I just said no one should get a pass. And I would certainly want my robbery investigated. However, if I knew there was another gang at work, which was responsible for thousands of robberies, I would fully understand that the public wanted this particular gang stopped at all costs, and the police were responding accordingly.

They were being entitled arseholes and hopefully karma will come knocking soon and a few of them end up on their entitled arses.

But it’s not unsafe. That’s literally the whole point. Staying two abreast is making them safer.

My original message wasn't regarding staying 2 abreast but thanks anyway.

Well seeing as your message quoted a message which was talking about g about riding 2 abreast it kind of read that way. 🤷‍♀️. Maybe if you’re changing the topic to something else don’t quote a post about riding two abreast or be a bit clearer what you’ve changed the topic to?

Cyclists should pull over every few miles to let faster moving traffic past if it is impossible to pass them on a road.
@GasPanic so bearing in mind that they probably covered little more than two miles with the OP behind, using your guideline they weren't unreasonable in not pulling over for that time.

One or two cyclists could pull into a farm gate perhaps. All twenty? Nope.

No it didn't? I've just checked and read back? I spoke about cyclists moving out to the other side of the road (not 2 abreast, actually covering the whole road both sides!) and the reply said it was self preservation, I then said it wasn't it's just dickish to refuse to let people pass.

I'm calculating it was about 2.5 miles. That kind of road you shouldn't really go > 40mph on, actually more like 25-30mph avg because of the blind bends (OP says there were twisty bends).

So 10 minutes to do a journey which would take OP without cyclist trailing... what... 5 minutes without the big group of cyclists? 5 minutes extra of one's life led to lots of ugly generalisation statements. Tsk Tsk.

If it were that big a group, it would take a while for everyone to get organised into single file. Could take at least 5 minutes just to organise everyone.

How could you have passed safely (leaving a 1.5m gap) on a single track road?

Highway Code Rule 66
You should

• be considerate of the needs of other road users when riding in groups. You can ride two abreast and it can be safer to do so, particularly in larger groups or when accompanying children or less experienced riders. Be aware of drivers behind you and allow them to overtake (for example, by moving into single file or stopping) when you feel it is safe to let them do so

Not really interested in the specific details here. Probably never get the whole truth anyway.

For me the overriding issue is that if all road users treated each other with more courtesey and respect the world would be a better place.

Which to me is largely what the highway code intends.

I don't believe there was ever the intention to allow say clause x subsection y to allow some road users to claim they are always legitimate in impeding the progress of others.

Which is what a lot of people seem to think.

@LordEmsworth for all anyone knows op could have had a "very important journey". An ill child, a dying parent? Thankfully she hadn't, but.the mamils holding her up just because they're arseholes and can, do not know this. Sick of them hogging the road & not letting people pass.

I posted on the local Facebook groups asking if anyone knew which cycling group would have been cycling on X road at X time, that they were going to cause an accident and that I had dashcam footage I wanted to show them. No replies from cyclists but half the town replied with similar stories.

All the road hogging miraculously stopped. 😀

First world problems. It was 10 minutes out of your day. Fair enough if you were an ambulance

I don't think this is legal. Riding two or three abreast in urban traffic is not allowed.

Legal, and correct, and safe.

How would they cause an accident?