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.

@Airspice

totally agree with you coming home tonight after picking up a pizza stuck behind two cyclists having a conversation will cycling not a bloody care in the world
raging my pizza was cold by the time i got home lol

Even my grandfather wasn't old enough ever to have paid "Road Tax".

Some of the posters have gone on unhinged (sometimes barely-literate) rants about what they would do to cyclists. It's pretty safe to say that they shouldn't be trusted with what is ultimately a two-tonne weapon.

maybe have one of those thermal lined food bags to transport it in to keep it hot

Nothing has been fully passed yet but there are some proposed changes to the Law, re cyclists
Just attached header and one part here

Regardless of the law, etiquette of the road if your going slower pull up and let them pass has always been my motto. Dick Lycra clad cyclists tend to wrap their brains in their balls when out and about, and only they matter. Personally knowing the road length I’ve have pulled over until they’d gone a distance and then follow on. They clearly had no interest in letting you pass.

The full rule is:
”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.”
For a large group of cyclists on a single lane road it is reasonable to assume it would not be safe to overtake them.

I welcome legislation that makes situations safer, but these proposals are to do with dangerous or inconsiderate cycling that leads to harm or death, and has nothing to do with the original post about a group of cyclists riding safely on a country road, following Rule 66 which states: ‘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”

@Flytrap01

you have made my morning
nit sure gather your serious or not lol

Yes this happens a lot in north Leeds where there are many rural roads, ever since it was passed for the Tour de France. They act often ride abreast on narrow bendy hilly roads stopping cars from overtaking when they could easily drop into single file when there is a car behind.
What gets overlooked in this ‘green’ battle is that the cyclists are young and fit, usually male and lycred up those inconvenienced are the old, the disabled, the families, the dog owners needing to exercise them and themselves, keeping them from the doctors. . Their time or lives don’t matter. They aren’t green.
Millions have been spent on cycle lanes near me always empty they prefer the narrow country lanes on the way to the parks which now have installed parking meters. Load of green eyewash not looking after people at all or their health. Just ticking boxes for funding and entitling arrogance.

I am a cyclist mainly off road but on road stretches we ride two abreast until there is a car behind us and then we ride single file - the sad thing is we get abuse from some drivers who want us off the road but when we are off road we get abuse from some walkers who don't want us there (even if it is bridleway) can't win....but I can't bear it when cyclists don't use the cycle lanes drives me potty

How are they stopping you from overtaking by not riding single file? If it’s not safe to overtake them when riding two abreast, on these narrow, bendy, hilly roads, then it’s not safe to overtake them single file either.

As a fellow rider, if I encounter traffic, I always trot to the nearest gateway or hop onto the grass verge to let cars past. I have known 2 cyclists do this, ever. I was out with friends last summer and in front with my two, when I noticed two cars being held up behind, so I trotted off to the nearest gateway, whereas my friends continued to hold up the traffic and also complain about my actions. 🙄

Maybe you pass other users inconsiderately?

Only rules, not the law unfortunately.

Rule 169, which applies to all road users, states that you should not hold up a long queue of traffic. This means that cyclists should be considerate and if a long queue is building up, they should pull over safely to allow traffic to pass, similar to how other vehicle users are expected to do.

You entirely missed the point - I was actually emphasising that this is the standard argument from irate drivers. You and I both know it's largely incorrect (although cycling insurance isn't compulsory and jolly well ought to be). However, I find the most pertinent argument to counter the standard argument is not to argue the toss - people simply argue black is white - but to point out that it is a vulnerable human being on the bike, and we are sitting safely in a big metal box on wheels.

Going back to the OP, I would however classify holding someone up for 10 minutes by not allowing them to pass as a pretty antisocial thing to do. If they couldn't continue safely, then they should have all pulled over to let the car pass - courtesy and practicality. Plus, she could have been a much more aggressive person, so it is really sensible self-preservation. However, I live rurally with a lot of older people still driving their cars well past the point when they should have given up their license (no buses or taxis), and I also see a lot of drunk/drugged driving at night, and so any dodgy cyclists I occasionally encounter are nothing compared to the utterly terrible driving I see constantly.

Lots of people defending the cyclists here but where was their mindfulness? They knew you were stuck behind them, wouldn't have taken them a minute to pull in to let you pass. I used to be more forgiving towards cyclists but recently as a pedestrian at a zebra crossing, a car stopped to let me cross so I started crossing, a cyclist passed the car and didn't stop but he did say sorry so all ok there but then another cyclist behind him also didn't stop and swerved to avoid me and tutted at me!! So now I know, not all, but many cyclists are indeed entitled wankers.

Is three cars a "long queue"?

I’m aware this does not relate to the original thread title but the conversation was moving on. As it often does on MNet 😀

Why do you think that 20 cyclists not immediately giving way to a single driver is "entitled and selfish", exactly?

20 people vs 1 person. If anything it's entitled for the driver of a single car to demand that all those people - who as much right to be on the road as he/she does - immediately dive out of the way, no matter how unsafe or difficult that might be.

but pointless, or perhaps they were trying to make an unnecessary point? OP sounds totally reasonable not the 'all cyclists are d1cks, don't pay road tax' etc.. type of person...

in scotland anyway there are 'passing places' - what would happen was there no way to overtake? Unless said single track road was one way? 😂

operative word in OP's posting is can

Firstly, neither myself nor the OP used the word 'immediately'. I said there was a lack of mindfulness and they could have moved over. Secondly, the driver wasn't demanding that they immediately dive out of the way. Thirdly, the OP indicated there was ample opportunity to move over. Fourthly, I never used the word 'selfish' and my comment about many (not all) cyclists being 'entitled wankers' is unfortunately, an opinion reinforced by my experience on the zebra crossing with the cyclist not stopping and tutting at me for crossing, when a car had already stopped and another cyclist at least apologised for not stopping.