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.

When you feel safe to do so quickly becomes when you feel convenient. In op’s situation cyclists could have safely stopped and allowed traffic to pass, it just wasn’t convenient for them to do so.

yes?

Why so much hate towards motorists? You come across arrogant, full of your own self importance and clearly don't drive judging by your incessant childish snipes about drivers!
You are exactly the issue with cyclists, you deliberately behave appallingly towards motorists because you tell yourself that it's deserved!

It's not a coincidence that most of the country hate cyclists! It's because you've got no manners or common sense! It you snarl up roads where it's difficult to overtake it gets dangerous! Isn't just the one car that's stuck behind you, other cars are getting impatient behind that and putting other motorists at risk by getting up backsides and making dangerous overtaking manoeuvres, it's not big and clever to disrupt roads like that! It's dangerous!

Cyclists where I live have this habit of finding the busiest roads to disrupt and they are always the roads that have a lovely unused taxpayer funded cycle lane off the road! You lot can't bring yourselves to use them because you'd rather target motorists! The last cyclist I got stuck behind like that also had a patient transport ambulance behind him that he never once moved on the cycle path to let it past!
There's those that think dual carriageways are the place to be especially on dark foggy winter mornings in black clothing and no lights!

You aren't the god you think you.are because you ride a bike and your vile attitude to motorists is just bizarre!

It’s hauntingly similar to the victim blaming women keep encountering when they are hurt by men. “Don’t go out at night, don’t drink, don’t dress provocatively”
Something peculiar happens when people in car-centric societies think about driving, Walker says. He points to safety campaigns encouraging children to wear bright clothing so they're seen on the roads. In Walker's opinion, these could be interpreted as teaching children that it's their own fault if they get run over, for not dressing in a way that suits drivers. In the context of driving, it's easy to slip into what could be seen as victim blaming, says Walker, without realising what you're doing.
"'Motonormativity': The bias that leads to dangerous driving - BBC Future" https://www.bbc.co.uk/future/article/20240306-motonormativity-the-bias-that-stops-us-seeing-driving-clearly

Why? On a road with even light traffic, cyclists would barely be able to make any progress. They have just as much right to use the road as any other vehicle.

Oh please, hardly the same. If you are a dick on a bike you face a greater risk than if you are a dick in a car. Being a dick on a bike is hardly a protected category.

So? If more people make it to where they are going in a timely fashion why is the one person on a bike a priority?

Asking for it basically? 🙄

Sorry, that was meant for @MemorableTrenchcoat

Yes, acting like a dick on the road is asking for it, regardless of your method of locomotion. It is also common sense to consider risk when you aren’t being a dick and adjust accordingly . As a pedestrian I don’t aggressively cross roads outside of a a crosswalk, nor would I walk down the center of a country lane when other users don’t have visibility. Acting like you are the only user is entitlement, and no sympathy if you meet a negative outcome.

I’m very pro-cycling, but these large groups of cyclists need to just stop clogging up the roads and split into smaller groups.

British Cycling recommends that groups of cyclists should consist of a maximum of eight riders. This is not the law, it’s not the Highway Code, but it’s basic courtesy and etiquette.

Even when a large bunch of 20 cyclists move into single file the sheer length of the mass of cyclists that you would need to pass makes overtaking the group very unsafe in any case.

So yes, I think these cyclists were being incredibly selfish and their actions are widening the divide between motorists and cyclists as can be clearly seen on this thread - that divide and lack of respect makes everyone less safe.

Good to see some objective, unemotional, even handed and not at all over exaggerating comments on here

Why?

Because road tax vrrrmmm insurance blah blah.

Always the same old ignorant shite.

45 minutes isn’t long. I walk my 5 year old daughter to school every day, it’s an hour round trip. We leave the house 20 minutes earlier than necessary each day to allow for any delays. We don’t even have traffic to worry about. If you want to be on time each day, leave at least 15-20 minutes early to allow for traffic etc. Obviously sometimes that won’t be long enough but at least you tried. The OP only had to leave 10 minutes early in this case, and to have a little bit of patience

So if you as a car driver acts “like a dick” by would you be “asking for it” if the person you inconvenienced with whatever you did caught you up at some lights, smashed your window and punched you?
I’m thinking you would (rightly) view that as utterly outrageous, criminal behaviour that the perpetrator should be punished for.
In spite of that you seem to think driving aggressively and dangerously in your car, that could very easily kill someone, because you are a bit impatient is perfectly justified?
I can’t fathom how anyone can think like this. People being a bit discourteous by driving/riding defensively hardly deserve to be killed or maimed. You realise cyclists are also someone’s partner or parent or child or best friend. What is wrong with you?

They’re not taking priority, they’re simply using the road, as is their right. It’s simply not reasonable to expect any road user to stop every time a faster vehicle approaches from behind.

Dramatic much?

if a cyclist or a driver put themselves in a dangerous position by riding or driving aggressively, then I don’t really have much sympathy when they experience a poor outcome. I have just as little patience for dick drivers as dick riders - the attitude is the same, and you don’t get special license for your dickishness when on a bike.

How would one “aggressively” cross roads as a pedestrian? I’m picturing arms up and doing a dinosaur impression, but you’re still going to get run over.

Generally when you need to walk down a country lane, you walk against the flow of traffic I.e. in the UK you’d walk on the right, and enough out from the verge/hedgerows to be visible, perhaps almost to the centre. Moving over to the side when you spot oncoming traffic. It’s not aggressive to do so.

I disagree it’s dramatic. People in cars kill people on bikes and pedestrians regularly (more than one a day last year with statistics). They seriously injure a lot more. Suggesting it’s fine that happens if a vulnerable road user irritates a car driver as they were “asking for it” is utterly abhorrent. I wonder if you’d be so flippant and have zero sympathy with a cyclist it if it was your child or someone else you care about that was riding their bike defensively in an attempt to keep themselves safe and annoyed some driver? I sincerely doubt it. I doubt you’ll change either and it’s probably time I blocked this thread as it’s seriously depressing reading

They don't pay road tax or insurance. Any idiot can ride one, there are no restrictions or certificates needed. No, they should not have the same rights!

Of course they should have the same rights. Bicycles were around before cars were even invented. And yes, there are some restrictions, e.g. bicycles may not use motorways.

More than half the cycling miles ridden on the road are insured, either through home insurance or British Cycling/Cycling UK etc. Insurance costs are <£50/yr of their membership costs which shows just how little a liability cycling represents.
There are more uninsured drivers on the road than cyclists, what is being done about them?
Road tax? That's been covered already but feel free to add helmets, 3 abreast, red lights etc to fill up your cycle rant bingo card.

This.

The cycle groups locally do have the sense to move into smaller groups and go single file so that cars can overtake them.

What I do object to is the odd lone kamikaze cyclist flying around blind bends on country lanes near me, when there could be a tractor, car horse or pedestrians round the corner. I've had one bombing along in the opposite direction and just manage to skim past my car last minute to avoid a collision. Lucky for him I was driving very slowly. A few days later I arrived in the same spot walking the dog to see a cyclist badly injured on the ground, people were with him and an ambulance was on its way. He had gone flying over a car bonnet, and was very lucky to have not gone through the windscreen.

Your opinion of someone riding aggressively is probably different to mine. I will cycle defensively when I interpret the road / traffic to be higher risk. E.g. on a normal size/1 lane each way road with lots of oncoming traffic then I will cycle near to the middle of the lane to deter motorists from squeezing past as they do if I cycle in the gutter. It also means that when someone passes to close I have got some space to move into and keep myself safe. So I am riding defensively to keep myself safe, not to antagonise or inconvenience anyone. But some people interpret it as aggressive cycling and think they have the right to 'teach me a lesson' by passing fast and too close.

Btw I am a nice person, I just happen to enjoy cycling. I have kids and a husband to get home to, I am just trying to get fit after I had my second baby. I am a considerate cyclist and driver, but being considerate to other road users when cycling does not mean that car users are never inconvenienced. I am inconvenienced daily by other cars when driving, it's just part of using the road and I don't have any more right to be there than they do.