You're viewing a single thread.
As a cyclist, two people cycling side by side while other vehicles are waiting to pass is a bit of a dick move tbh.
Not illegal, and nothing compared to the shit that drivers do to cyclists, but still a bit of a dick move.
Cycling two abreast is better for the driver, since they can overtake much quicker.
That image is quite a niche scenario and doesn’t represent the situation in the original image.
Obviously it’s different with a group of eight compared to just two people…
niche scenario
Never been to a country where road cycling is massive then? Try living in anyplace that has Alps in it lol
You’re right. I live in a city and have never seen more than four people cycling together.
It’s almost like cycling in the alps is a niche situation, and cycling in cities happens much more frequently 🤔
That all depends on the type of cycling, and what you call a city
How is it different though? In the original picture you can safely overtake the two of them in about half the time and half the available opening in traffic compared to them riding single file.
That's not safely overtaking. That's squeezing through and if there's a chance vehicle will get hit he will push the cyclists out.
Because the image assumes that a driver can only ever safely overtake if they’re completely in the other lane, which simply isn’t true.
It also assumes that there will be an opportunity where the other lane is completely free for them to move into it.
Overtaking eight people in a line is going to have a large time saving if they’re cycling in twos, but when you scale that down to just two then the difference is negligible and the space saving is more important.
Your theory rests on the assumption that I value my life and safety lower than two seconds the driver could shave off of their journey time. Or thirty seconds. Or two days.
Well, buddy, you're wrong.
Even if I'm riding alone I'm not riding in the gutter where I have a greater risk of puncture from debris, and a greater risk of some idiot close passing in a 3 ton umbrella.
I don't think you understand the point of the image
Have a closer read of points 2 and 3 in the image. For most lanes there isn't enough width for cyclist + wobbling side to side + 1.5m margin + car. So the car needs to overtake in the other lane, which means the other lane needs to be completely free of cars.
In my experience this is like 80% of overtaking situations when cycling. Far from niche.
Great image, but you see people really don't want to use their steering wheels. And if possible they'd like pedestrian crossings removed as well. In ideal world there would be a race track from their home to exactly where they need to go and everyone else in traffic is a dick. Including other car drivers. Learning traffic laws and rules is too much of an effort anyway.
It's superficially convincing but if it was true you wouldn't need an infographic. Drivers would notice for themselves that it's better for them. In practice it's easy to overtake cyclists in a line and impossible to overtake them side-by-side. I've never overtaken side-by-side cyclists in my life, when that happens you're stuck behind them until they make a turn.
What actually happens is, like the footnote says, cyclists doing this take up the whole lane, they don't tuck in like image 4, so point 3 and 4 are both false.
3 is wrong because having enough time to pull to the center doesn't mean you have enough time to pull fully into the other lane and back. A safe overtake is made impossible because the required time is longer.
4 is wrong because with cyclists across the lane you get just as close to them when fully in the other lane as in image 1, and it's just as dangerous as in-lane overtaking.
5 is just dumb. Both groups take the same time to overtake because of the extra time taken to pull over, and you have way more opportunities to straddle overtake, not to mention the side-by-side groups blocking visibility reducing opportunities even further.
I commute by bike every day and don't own a car, I will fully block lanes when I don't want to be overtaken, but I still think this is annoying selfish behavior.
The image appears to be from the UK. Here in the UK cyclists are supposed to stay at least 0.5m from the kerb, with a recommendation for more distance if possible (rule 72 of the Highway Code). Cars are supposed to keep at least 1.5m away from cyclists when overtaking (rule 163). Taking an average cyclist width of 60cm (some handlebars go much wider than that, as might pannier bags, but let's use that as an average), that means a single cyclist should have control of ~2.6m of the lane at least.
Let's say that the average lane on urban roads in the UK are around 3m wide (an estimate based on a quick google, not a rule), this means a legal overtake of a cyclist should have the car leaving no more than 40cm of the car in the lane. It's not a big jump from that to moving entirely into the other lane.
Admittedly almost no one in the UK actually follows these rules, but this is how it's supposed to be. Given that, adding another cyclist riding abreast shouldn't affect overtaking time significantly, whereas the two cyclists riding in line will double the amount of time in the oncoming lane.
but if it was true you wouldn’t need an infographic.
That's a shit argument.
Permanently Deleted
it doesn't actually ever say why they should. It completely ignores that it obviously takes longer to drive across into the other lane and then back than to pass the cyclists
Because it's SAFER. Oh my god, have we really got so selfish that a human life is worth like a second.
Oh my god, have we really gotten so stupid that we can't even read the next paragraph? If the point is that it's more safe (which is totally valid) then why does the the image specifically avoid saying that?
As I've mentioned elsewhere, in the UK (which is where this image seems to be from), the "safe" passing distance for a car overtaking a bike is supposed to be 1.5m. Add that to the 0.5m minimum distance the cyclist is supposed to be from the kerb and the width of the cyclist themselves, and overtaking even a single cyclist should have the car almost entirely in the other lane anyway (UK lanes are typically narrower than their US counterparts).
Whether anyone actually follows those rules is another question, but that is how motorists are supposed to behave.
It is also written into our Highway Code that motorists should "give motorcyclists, cyclists and horse riders and horse drawn vehicles at least as much room as you would when overtaking a car"
I disagree since overtaking a cyclist in the same lane is unsafe anyway. In the city I always cycle in the middle of the lane because it prevents unsafe takeovers and dooring.
So it's a bit of a conundrum. Because there are pros and cons in riding abreast.
On one hand, cyclists are more compact and more visible. On the other filling whole lane would mean drivers behind them would have to time their overtaking. However, car drivers almost never leave enough space when overtaking cyclists and 100% never think about wind that might push them or that cyclist might need more space to avoid potholes and stuff. So being a dick driver is not exclusive to cyclists.
Traffic law, at least where I live, states when overtaking cyclists driver must leave enough space between him and the cyclist so as to not inconvenience cyclist. Which is vague and not helping one bit. However I think it's far better to be forced to slow down and time overtaking than not slowing down and flying next to a single lane of cyclists. Because if and when there's a car coming from opposite direction, car driver won't care or look twice to move closer to the edge of the road and push others out.
Where do you see another vehicle "waiting to pass"? There's absolutely nothing in this picture telling you how much traffic there is, how wide the road is, etc. Nothing.
What can be seen in the picture, however, is a car that, no matter the speed, is tailgating way too close. Which is a misdemeanor in some countries.
Yes illegal, depending on the country.
If cyclists can use the whole lane (common situation in the United States for example), it is (almost always) illegal for a driver to leave their drivable portion of the road to pass someone, bicyclist or otherwise. That includes crossing any lines, going to the opposite side of the road, being on the shoulder or sidewalk, etc.
Without a separate bicycle lane, it is not permitted to pass a bicyclist.
I'm not sure I'm understanding... as a driver you can legally pass by going into the opposing lane momentarily, as long as the line in the center is dashed (not solid) on your side and there is no oncoming traffic. That's kind of the whole reason the center line is painted like that, combined with those signs that say "do not pass" and "pass with caution" when the line goes solid and back to dashed.
In that scenario, that would be part of the drivable area yes. However, that is exceedingly rare in the United States at least from my experience in smaller cities/suburbia (east coast). I regularly see people breaking the law by driving on the shoulder to go around someone turning left, and illegally crossing a solid double yellow line to pass a bicyclist.
In my experience in midwest suburbia the center line is almost always dashed unless there's poor visibility (seeing around a tight curve or over a hill) or more than one lane of traffic in each direction (eliminating the need to overtake in opposing traffic). Or its a pedestrian zone, with reduced speed regardless.
True, some people break the laws. I don't see it nearly as often as you claim to, and usually not in especially unsafe conditions, but the point stands that those people are selfish and impatient. I don't see why bicyclists should have to sacrifice either their freedom (to bike to where they please and utilize existing public infrastructure) or their safety (by leaving the illusion that a full size vehicle might squeeze by at cruising speed) for such people. It's not bicyclists' fault that the infrastructure fails to serve all of its users equally.
Which is why everyone hates cyclists. Y'all are the left lane campers of the freeway.
If a sign is posted saying 'Bicyclists may use full lane' then that lane is now a bicycle lane with cars being allowed on it for some reason. Check your car brain.
And transit and emergency vehicles can wait. Fuck them amiright? You don’t sound irrational and spiteful at all.
Transit should ideally be on its own section anyway (preferably on rails) and literally everyone has to pull to the side and yield to emergency vehicles. If their lights and siren are off and they are driving on a road/bicycle path in this case, yes they can wait.
That’s inane. I’m a cyclist and even I think you are acting pompous. They can have the road. You’re fired as my spokesperson. I’d move over and I feel unthreatened.
Bro you’re just getting in peoples way. Regardless of your opinion they’re not going to like you.
Regardless of your opinion, it is illegal
There’s a line between following the law and being a dick
Don't hate the cyclists, hate the government. We all want separate cycle lanes.
In my city people are literally protesting new separated bicycle lanes by slashing the tires of rental bikes... Ridiculous
Some of those same people will then unironically complain about being "stuck behind a cyclist".
Wrong, it's easier and safer to overtake two cyclists abreast because you don't have to be in the oncoming lane for as long
And just so we’re clear, the reason it’s a dick move is the car can move faster than the bike so blocking the car robs the people in the car if its full utility. They’re now forced to go your speed, which is probably less than the speed limit.
While we’re at it let’s just block emergency vehicles cuz they are even bigger taking up more space. Boo them for not all just havin bycycles and saving on emissions