If Frosties did cycling jerseys — pro team's tiger stripes set a new standard for garish cycling kits; "The obsession with MGIF is just bizarre"; Last Christmas I gave you...a £250 sculpture made of bike chains; Chopper Everesting + more on the live blog

• 'always MGIF' is not a given in developed countries, with mostly responsible motorists.
• Note that cyclists are 'traffic', just not motor traffic, unless on e-bikes.
• 'It is super cool driving with a buddy, have done it too, but only at super remote roads.' The rest of the time I'm taking up too much road space & can be unnecessarily holding up traffic.

You mean 🚨📣"two abreast" 🚨📣- AKA side-by-side?

Like this?

TBH MGIF applies as soon as you're stood next to a bicycle, never mind riding one.  Yes - I would feel less comfortable in many places cycling side-by-side on the roads* but I don't think it really changes the safety.

Why?  A driver should give you at least another cyclist's worth of space when overtaking.

If they won't do it with the width of two people side-by-side you can be sure they will also fail to do so safely with them one-behind-the-other.  If they'll get irritated about cyclists "being in their way" with two people they'll be just as angry with one.

Blocking traffic?  Things are always blocking traffic, it's called "other traffic".

As the UK highway code points out (Rule 66):

You should avoid any actions that could reduce your control of your cycle
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.

* Actually this applies on "cycle infra" in the UK normally also.  We don't build cycle infra wide enough either and mostly it's not separate cycle infra but cycle lanes or (if separate) "shared use paths" anyway (so pedestrians and dogs will want the *same* space).

Yes right two abreast,

Also yes I mean blocked motor traffic.

But regarding safety, this couple of cyclists, are neither a large group or less experienced, and usually the couple of experienced roadies is the most common two abreast example. And I wrote riding two abreast is somehow legal about riding two abreast because it says that you should allow drivers to overtake by moving into single file.

We all know that despite that we want speed limits to be enforced, some people will exceed them, and it is accepted even at road design https://telraam.helpspace-docs.io/article/14/speed-measurement-v85-expla... .

The ones that will exceed speed limits, may have also other problems. Maybe a bit drunk, maybe looking their phone, maybe in an argument or just overstimating his driving abilities.

Bad drivers? Yes

Still on our roads? Still yes

This combination may cause them to see you at the last moment. If you are inline with your cycling buddy, the speeding and distracted driver, may squeeze between you and the car on the other side of the road and nobody gets hurt and face a nasty close pass. If you are on the outside of the row though it will probably lead to a crash. That's how I firmly see it, please don't start the alternate scenarios because we will never end.

I know in an ideal world such poor driving wouldn't occur, but unfortunately it does. Until only reliable fully autonomous cars are allowed on roads, or extreme policing its better to protect yourself from bad driving.

"that you should allow drivers to overtake by moving into single file"

NO

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.

Also 213

It can be safer for groups of cyclists to ride two abreast in these situations. Allow them to do so for their own safety, to ensure they can see and be seen.

"please don't start the alternate scenarios"

as this might undermine my argument completely.

Hirsute wrote:

"please don't start the alternate scenarios"

as this might undermine my argument completely.

You may start mate, I just cannot answer because it can get really endless.

Interesting that you choose to write that rather than acknowledge that you left out 2 significant parts of the HC.

cyclisto wrote:

But regarding safety, this couple of cyclists, are neither a large group or less experienced, and usually the couple of experienced roadies is the most common two abreast example. And I wrote riding two abreast is somehow legal about riding two abreast because it says that you should allow drivers to overtake by moving into single file.

It actually states in Rule 66:

Quote:

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.

Note that the important point is that it is when the cyclists think that a safe overtake can be performed - not just because the driver is impatient.

So much to unpack there.  Questions:

How many times are you "blocked" by cyclists?  For how long?  How does that compare with e.g. sitting at traffic lights (they're blocking you!) or waiting for other motor vehicles to move (because they're blocked by other motor vehicles?)

Is cycling on the roads justified at all?

How far would you go to protect yourself?  What makes you think that simply being in tandem with another rider (as opposed to side-by-side) will make you safer, given there are such poor / homicidal drivers out there?

Again my take is "defensive cycling" - but that does NOT mean "never be in the way of a motorist" (whether single or in a group).  It's a balance, to try to reduce some risks (at costs of "being in the way" more) while remaining considerate of other road users.  And realising that for some drivers (I believe relatively few - wrong'uns / just not looking / competent to drive) nothing I do myself short of not cycling will improve my safety.

That might mean just avoiding some roads (or at some times).  Mostly because cycling along fast / busy roads can be very unpleasant.  It might not be considerate either - any more than some driver taking a traction engine on such a route.

There is no need for "ideal worlds" either.

Neither autonomous cars NOR "extreme policing" account for the safety of the increased numbers cycling in NL, Denmark, Sweden, Swizerland, Finland... The UK has "safe roads" but that has come at the cost of de-facto - and sometimes deliberately - excluding people not in cars from using them.  The con here comes from failing to provide decent alternatives.

So different ways are possible and countries have done it and are doing it.  It doesn't even require every single street to have separate infra.

Why it's not "better drivers" - humans are more or less humans wherever.  Having friends and relatives doing an activity - or doing it yourself - can give you some empathy.  Plus people learn by repetition.  If you're seeing people cycling every day you'll expect them.  If whenever you interact with them you do so in one of a very limited range of standard ways (residential street, side street, roundabout) you will master that - even when you're tired etc.

Hi car-brain,

You are incorrectly thinking of the cyclists as 'a problem' rather than road users that every right to ride 2 abreast.

Try watching this short video by Chris Boardman and Blaine Walsh that explains some of the reasons why it is preferable to do so.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o9pmw2ckQSU

In the vast majority of collisions and near miss incidents the driver is at fault.

And don't forget the Highway Code's hierarchy of road users.

https://www.cyclinguk.org/safer-highway-code-cyclists

Isn't the issue that this is the ideal but currently it's more often the wrong way up in reality (look at how much we spend and on what)?

So even "cyclists" aren't going to think of themselves as "traffic" in the UK because that's not how we are all raised / "normal".  And if we do we'll quickly be disabused of that by most people.  Even if in a sympathetic manner e.g. "but you're being inconsiderate, look at all these motor vehicles with all their occupants who have places to go.  (And you're just out for a jolly, else you wouldn't have chosen to cycle)."

I do still believe cycling can become a mainstream transport option in the UK.  So "mass cycling" e.g. say > 10% - 15% of trips.  That's simply because it's happening / happened in several other car-dependent places.

I no longer believe that this can happen without all the expensive, controversial and time-consuming "fixing the infra" / "changing the laws" though.  It would be great, but ... won't happen.  Because those difficult things I listed were required in all the other places which have moved to or towards mass cycling.

(Some outliers: Germany, Japan and China.  I don't know much about Germany but it seems to have stalled somewhat - perhaps the motor industry is still sacred?  Japan has lots of cycling in places, often on the footway; that country has a culture of social cohesiveness and consequent rule-following which is extremely different from the UK's.  I know little about China - I assume cycling there is where they're still transitioning towards the car / motorbike.  Also cultural / state differences too!)

Totally agree with your graph with the Spiderman law. But there is also the Darwin law, and I wouldn't like to win a Darwin award, so I do anything to prevent it.

The Boardman video is really nice, but we live in the real world with irresponsible drivers. I really don't care if I get run over by a car and the driver gets covicted for a 50 years and then hanged, drawn and quartered, all cars scraped for campagnolo quick releases and I become the Saint of commuter cycling. I just want to go to my work and shopping safely. And this video is full of bad driving happening right now.

I understand chrisonabike's argument in safety of autonomous vehicles and policing, but even in Netherlands cyclists still get killed. I would definitely feel more safe there, but to be honest on my predominant routes, there are already mostly cycle paths, that are bad, making me search after midnight for suspension seatposts, yet separated from traffic and in general very little motor traffic. Hadn't it been for that infra and low car density and I would probably not cycle.

All this issues that we are discussing in this video would have been evaded if there were more dedicated cycle routes.

cyclisto wrote:

Totally agree with your graph with the Spiderman law. But there is also the Darwin law, and I wouldn't like to win a Darwin award, so I do anything to prevent it.

...

but even in Netherlands cyclists still get killed

...

No-one wants to die on the roads.  I also agree that the idea that someone will be held accountable is extremely cold comfort (but necessary - and sadly this is deficient or even absent in the UK).  I bet people on here agree on more than you'd think and the noisiest arguments are about "how much"?

So how much inconvenience do you tolerate for "safety" / how much risk is too much?  Stay in your house?  Less fun but mostly safe - though occasionally vehicles still find their way to you.  You can stay off the roads apart from walking/wheeling to the car / bus / train - but tens of people get killed on the footway by drivers every year in the UK.  And you probably need to cross roads.

My own "justifiable" risk profile includes cycling on some roads.  However I'm increasingly aware that I'm choosing to mostly cycle on routes completely separate from traffic or very quiet low-speed streets (I'm fortunate for the UK [1] [2] etc.)  Mostly because it's just more pleasant.  Again I'm lucky - routes I use are somewhat maintained, which means sometimes muck and vegetation but overall better surfaces than our (dire) roads.

Would I recommend cycling to vulnerable people - say kids or the elderly?  On the separated and quiet parts - yes, even in the UK.  I hope I can do so with more conviction in the future.  I'd obviously recommend it in NL or parts of Scandinavia.  Note that while cars do indeed kill people in NL and this may need some remedial work, the main incident type leading to deaths and injuries is "single cycle crashes" [recent report here in Dutch] - with "person over 55 fell over" looming large.  Similar to people on foot I suspect.

Try watching this short video by Chris Boardman and Blaine Walsh that explains some of the reasons why it is preferable to do so

Excellent. The important thing is to persuade extremely hostile police forces to accept and believe what's in it

As to night and safety - surely at night having a pair of lights / reflective moving things spread out is more visible than one hiding behind another one?

cyclisto wrote:

Riding in night 2 in a row seems too dangerous.

I know it is somehow legal in UK, it is not here where I ride (it doesn't matter where) and I believe for a good reason. I have heard all the theory and seen many beautiful illustrations why it is better to ride 2 in a row, but in practice it just blocks traffic and given that drivers will always MGIF, it creates dangerous situations.

It is super cool riding with a buddy, have done it too, but only at super remote roads.

You state that you've heard all the theory, but you obviously don't understand it.

Riding side-by-side doesn't block traffic, but it does block dangerous overtakes and makes safe overtakes (i.e. crossing into the other lane) quicker and easier. Also, I think you'll find that it doesn't create dangerous situations, anymore than banks create robbers - if you want to blame someone, pick on the people who are actually creating the danger.

cyclisto wrote:

Riding in night 2 in a row seems too dangerous.

I know that I've dabated this with you plenty of times and I'll probably never convince you otherwise, but I'll never wrap my head around why you think that preventing dangerous overtakes with 2-abreast/primary is less safe than literally encouraging them by hugging the kerb. If I followed your advice, I wouldn't be alive to have this conversation right now.

cyclisto wrote:

but in practice it just blocks traffic

Yes, that's literally the point. It's objectively safer to force a driver to hold back than to allow them to squeeze you through a pinch-point. And if it's not a pinch-point, then it makes literally no difference to a driver's ability to overtake because the distance a cyclist is advised to ride from the kerb, plus the width of the bike, plus the minimum safe passing distance is the same as a regulation lane width - so a driver overtaking a single cyclist in secondary should be using the opposite lane ayway.

"... because we won't bother doing anything about theft."

Difficult to represent graphically, but I favour the point where the seatstay crosses with the rim and tyre, uses up the space within the lock and hopefull makes "jacking" more difficult, and maybe, just maybe means that the double angle grinding cut needed  more inconvenient.

Because of the plussness of my tyres I'm waiting for the larger angle grinding resistant hiplock to be released.

And I've heard that a good chain and d-lock can be a better combination.

Someone's Christmas gift for the Nigels...

But yes, it does remind me of "but those cycle lanes barely have anyone in them" aka "spacial efficiency".

chrisonabike wrote:

Someone's Christmas gift for the Nigels...

But yes, it does remind me of "but those cycle lanes barely have anyone in them" aka "spacial efficiency".

It's totally twisted that some people think the correct metric to measure the success of a road/lane is how many vehicles are stuck in traffic there.

Someone posted this response - a video from the 80s about driving in london.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ab_edMYN_zM&t=560s

Also - motor vehicles don't cause congestion - it's not providing for motor vehicles (in increasing numbers) what done it...

That's a little unfair as although this is all just human "loss aversion" that is often focussed - or misdirected - by our search for a simple "why?".  A slightly ludicrous example but have heard the like: "I've not been there for years, but when I went back recently the traffic was insane!  The idiots have added a cycle path and now no-one can get through..."

Even our planners and politicians don't seem to understand induced demand or traffic evaporation though.  Or don't want to - maybe because the shared ideology of "growth" and "driving literally drives the economy" (plus "congestion costs money") and "traffic is the lifeblood of the city".  Obviously providing for cycling is therefore a drain on the public purse in two ways!

hawkinspeter wrote:

It's totally twisted that some people think the correct metric to measure the success of a road/lane is how many vehicles are stuck in traffic there.

It's worse than that.  If a motor traffic is not completely free flowing all the time, then we need more roads.  But if a cycle lane is not completely congested all the time, then we didn't need it.