Shame the horse didn't sidestep really.

[Petrol Pete]

Whilst out hiking a couple of months ago, I and my pal were walking (at some speed) up a path that was about five feet wide when we heard an angry shout from behind us. It was a lady on horseback who was cross that we were holding her up. I suggested she might like to fit a bell to the harness as an audible warning of approach. She wasn't amused. She had to wait until the path widened enough for her to pass us safely. It was nice to have the roles reversed for a change.

Or step aside politely and as the horse passes jam your walking stick deep into the part of the horse where the sun don't shine, and if she is a good horsewoman she will be miles away from you within minutes ! if not she will be on her knees in front of you as the horse goes for the land world speed record. . (disclaimer . this action should only be carried out in a cartoon world where no one and no animals ever get hurt. No horses or rude horsewomen were injured in the imagining of this fantasy...your honour)

 

[c63chris]

Fully agree.

And would we even consider having the London Marathon running through central London without closing the streets and roads for traffic....?

In this case the race organisers took the easy route... shifting 100% of the blame onto the riders (banning one for life and the other for 12 years), thus exonerating themselves of any wrongdoing.

Please read their statement. They have said they will work with SAG and local horse groups as well as putting up more signs. That’s not passing the blame. I’ve raced in this event. Human Race are a good night organisation and this is the first incident in all the years it’s been running.

 

[markjay]

I was on a single decker bus yesterday a rare event,the bus takes these old B road plenty of bends,and we come up against the lycra boys riding two abreast,they are just out for a cycle,now these buses are every 30 mins,I would have thought that they could have pulled into a number of small lay byes there was only two of them,but no we trundled along behind them for at least 3 miles before the driver could get a clear straight bit to get past,it is just anti social,we get plenty of tractors around this way and to be fair some of them pull over to allow the 10 or so cars get past,the cyclists seem to be a breed apart.

Some motorists charge through junctions where they have 'right of way' simply because if they colide with another vehicle then it would be the other driver's fault.

This is not dissimilar to how some cyclists hold up traffic because they have the 'protection of the law' - i.e., if an impatient, irate, hot-headed, driver knocks them down while trying to overtake, then the driver will be prosecuted.

Which makes for a great tombstone epithet - 'I may be dead, but the other driver got 6 points on his license!'

 

[grimree]

Whilst out hiking a couple of months ago, I and my pal were walking (at some speed) up a path that was about five feet wide when we heard an angry shout from behind us. It was a lady on horseback who was cross that we were holding her up. I suggested she might like to fit a bell to the harness as an audible warning of approach. She wasn't amused. She had to wait until the path widened enough for her to pass us safely. It was nice to have the roles reversed for a change.

Obviously stepping out of the way to let faster 'traffic' through would be out of the question (or courteous)

 

[E53AMG]

Unfortunately (and as I've already said) the roadway is there to get from point A to point B, it can be used for that purpose by anyone, whether on a bicycle, horse, car or anything else (including pedestrians) I don't think there is any statute of limitations to what (or who) may use it

I would agree about cycle races however - when I was in the job cycle clubs would (sometimes) let us know when they intended to hold time trials etc - we had a standard letter which we sent, saying that we didn't ' condone' racing on the highway, but couldn't prevent it (as far as cycles were concerned)

If you are correct there wouldn't be the offence of Jay walking, I suspect there are limitations as to who can use the road..

Sent from my SM-G955F using Tapatalk

 

[markjay]

If you are correct there wouldn't be the offence of Jay walking, I suspect there are limitations as to who can use the road..

Sent from my SM-G955F using Tapatalk

Isn't Jay Walking an American thing? Or do we have it here in the UK as well?

 

[E53AMG]

2 abreast is not illegal. Look in the Highway Code. The Police recommend it as safer than single file as single file encourages cars to try to pass when there’s not a safe gap.

I'm glad there was an "a" inserted there[emoji6]

The police are public servants employed to enforce existing laws not to make them or give any recommendations, they simply do not have the authority to do so.

The highway code is a guidance booklet not an Act of Parliament.

Careless cycling is an offence under section 29 of the Road Traffic Act 1988, deliberately riding in an inconsiderate manner so as to cause delay and stress to other road users is an offence.


Sent from my SM-G955F using Tapatalk

 

[Abb]

Isn't Jay Walking an American thing? Or do we have it here in the UK as well?

It is not an offence here in the UK, it is in several other countries.

 

[E53AMG]

It is not an offence here in the UK, it is in several other countries.

Unless you are walking on a Motorway.

Sent from my SM-G955F using Tapatalk

 

[wu56Shoozz]

I'm gonna ask this as I had it when I drove buses:

You come across two abreast cyclists in the middle of the road - what happens next, what is the correct procedure?

Baring in mind I have the answer from an MIAM Oserver/Instructor...

 

[RonFleet]

Obviously stepping out of the way to let faster 'traffic' through would be out of the question (or courteous)

The path was hemmed in between high, steep banks so, no, we couldn't step out of the way, or we would have done so.

 

[Giantvanman]

2 abreast is not illegal. Look in the Highway Code. The Police recommend it as safer than single file as single file encourages cars to try to pass when there’s not a safe gap.

Not true and not true. The police do not make the rules of the road and Highway Code (relevant sections in bold) says:-

Rule 66
You should

• keep both hands on the handlebars except when signalling or changing gear
• keep both feet on the pedals
• never ride more than two abreast, and ride in single file on narrow or busy roads and when riding round bends
• not ride close behind another vehicle
• not carry anything which will affect your balance or may get tangled up with your wheels or chain
• be considerate of other road users, particularly blind and partially sighted pedestrians. Let them know you are there when necessary, for example, by ringing your bell if you have one. It is recommended that a bell be fitted.

Rule 68
You MUST NOT

• carry a passenger unless your cycle has been built or adapted to carry one
• hold onto a moving vehicle or trailer
• ride in a dangerous, careless or inconsiderate manner
• ride when under the influence of drink or drugs, including medicine.

----------

The "it's okay to ride two abreast" comes from the cycling mafia and pressure groups, who also advocate riding in blocks of, for example, three abreast, six long. All however seem to conveniently ignore the second part of the sentence, "and ride in single file on narrow or busy roads and when riding round bends" which is the part that describes where most conflicts between cyclists and vehicles occur.

Unfortunately just like many car drivers, many cyclists have either forgotten or choose to believe that the "MUST NOT" doesn't apply to them. They'd be idiots doing it on a motorcycle or in car so why shouldn't they classed as (dangerous) idiots just because they are on a cycle? (rhetorical question)

Even more unfortunate is the fact that very little is done to weed out the idiots off the road these days but at least with a car, there is a way to identify the pilot.

As I've said before, imagine all the time "the police" would have to dedicate to what people think of as 'real crimes' gif they didn't have to deal with people who can't follow some very simple rules.

 

[c63chris]

Not true and not true. The police do not make the rules of the road and Highway Code (relevant sections in bold) says:-

Rule 66
You should

• keep both hands on the handlebars except when signalling or changing gear
• keep both feet on the pedals
• never ride more than two abreast, and ride in single file on narrow or busy roads and when riding round bends
• not ride close behind another vehicle
• not carry anything which will affect your balance or may get tangled up with your wheels or chain
• be considerate of other road users, particularly blind and partially sighted pedestrians. Let them know you are there when necessary, for example, by ringing your bell if you have one. It is recommended that a bell be fitted.

Rule 68
You MUST NOT

• carry a passenger unless your cycle has been built or adapted to carry one
• hold onto a moving vehicle or trailer
• ride in a dangerous, careless or inconsiderate manner
• ride when under the influence of drink or drugs, including medicine.

----------

The "it's okay to ride two abreast" comes from the cycling mafia and pressure groups, who also advocate riding in blocks of, for example, three abreast, six long. All however seem to conveniently ignore the second part of the sentence, "and ride in single file on narrow or busy roads and when riding round bends" which is the part that describes where most conflicts between cyclists and vehicles occur.

Unfortunately just like many car drivers, many cyclists have either forgotten or choose to believe that the "MUST NOT" doesn't apply to them. They'd be idiots doing it on a motorcycle or in car so why shouldn't they classed as (dangerous) idiots just because they are on a cycle? (rhetorical question)

Even more unfortunate is the fact that very little is done to weed out the idiots off the road these days but at least with a car, there is a way to identify the pilot.

As I've said before, imagine all the time "the police" would have to dedicate to what people think of as 'real crimes' gif they didn't have to deal with people who can't follow some very simple rules.

Video: Essex motorbike cop tells cyclists they mustn't ride two abreast - even after he consults Highway Code, which says they can

 

[Giantvanman]

Video: Essex motorbike cop tells cyclists they mustn't ride two abreast - even after he consults Highway Code, which says they can

"never ride more than two abreast,"

AND

"ride in single file on narrow or busy roads and when riding round bends"

That means there isn't a carte blanche rule allowing cyclists to ride two abreast AT ALL TIMES and in every location/situation and certainly not because the spokesperson for a single force has decided to ignore the Highway Code and indeed the law visa vie S28 RTA - "ride in a dangerous, careless or inconsiderate manner" to suit a single group of road users.

No offence but you appear to confusing "the police" with a single force and until the Highway Code is changed, whatever Derbyshire Police say is irrelevant and this would the case if even every force in the country said the same thing........ "the police" or law enforcers don't make the rules, the law makers do and they publish the Highway Code so we are all reading from the same page, not just the bits that suit us.

Or should be.

 

[markjay]

We can debate this forever, the issue is that the Higway Code is vague on this point.

By vague I mean that the definitions of 'busy' road and 'narrow' road are unclear.

If riding two abreast is holding up traffic, then the road is evidently busy, hence riding two abreast is no longer pemitted. So how many cars can the cyclists hold up before the definition of 'busy' kicks in?

As for 'narrow', well the width of the road is only relevant in relation to the ability of a car to safely overtake cyclists riding two abreast.

So again, as soon as the cyclists hold up traffic, clearly the road is 'narrow' and they should not be riding two abreast.

Perhaps the Highway Code should be amended to say more specifically that two-abreast riding is only permitted on dual carriageway erc.

Or just simply say that cyclists can ride two abreast as long as they are not holding up any traffic (which is probably what the original intention behind the current misleading wording was).

As for the police advice regarding two abreast being safer... I don't disagree with the professionals, but in this case the police should campaign for the Highway Cods to be changed, rather than dish out contradicting advice.

 

[c63chris]

“Whatever Derbyshire Police say is irrelevant”

I’m out. There’s plenty written on this have google. The Highway Code is poorly written. Ask the a police and they will say it’s Not 2 abreast when busy or on narrow corners. A good cycling group. Will shout “car back” and go into single line if a vehicle is behind. This clearly won’t change your view. I don’t understand the animosity here. The roads have changed for the worse. I was on holiday. Cycling. In Spain and drivers patiently waited behind cyclists. Gave them a wide berth and passed when safe. We argue about should they have tax or insurance and if 2 abreast is legal never mind safe. As I said I’m out.

 

[markjay]

...The Highway Code is poorly written. .... A good cycling group will shout “car back” and go into single line if a vehicle is behind. ...

That's the sensible thing to do and probably what the Highway Code meant to say (but failed).

 

[Chugg]

You come across two abreast cyclists in the middle of the road - what happens next, what is the correct procedure?

Mow ‘em down?

 

[Deleted96908]

“Whatever Derbyshire Police say is irrelevant”

I’m out. There’s plenty written on this have google. The Highway Code is poorly written. Ask the a police and they will say it’s Not 2 abreast when busy or on narrow corners. A good cycling group. Will shout “car back” and go into single line if a vehicle is behind. This clearly won’t change your view. I don’t understand the animosity here. The roads have changed for the worse. I was on holiday. Cycling. In Spain and drivers patiently waited behind cyclists. Gave them a wide berth and passed when safe. We argue about should they have tax or insurance and if 2 abreast is legal never mind safe. As I said I’m out.

There isn't any animosity. It's simply a case of differing views, especially when:

1/ Discussing one of the forum's hot topics: Apple, Audi, BMW, iPhone and... cyclists - to name but a few.
2/ Discussing the law with an ex policeman. GVM has guided this forum for many a year on the laws and regulations that surround us. Many a heated debate has benefitted from his timely input.​

On a lighter note, observing how preposterous (or intentionally humorous) written instructions can be, 30 years ago the 'Gents' in my local had a Durex machine on the wall with the words:

Put 50p in and pull knob out
.​

 

[Giantvanman]

“Whatever Derbyshire Police say is irrelevant”

I’m out. There’s plenty written on this have google. The Highway Code is poorly written. Ask the a police and they will say it’s Not 2 abreast when busy or on narrow corners. A good cycling group. Will shout “car back” and go into single line if a vehicle is behind. This clearly won’t change your view. I don’t understand the animosity here. The roads have changed for the worse. I was on holiday. Cycling. In Spain and drivers patiently waited behind cyclists. Gave them a wide berth and passed when safe. We argue about should they have tax or insurance and if 2 abreast is legal never mind safe. As I said I’m out.

If you recollect, this thread began with an incident whereby two cyclists 'undertook' (passed on the left) a horse and rider in clear contravention of the Highway Code and the Road Traffic Act, hitting the horse/rider and failing to stop.

My view is that the law and the Highway Code do not permit two-abreast cycling at all times. There is no ambiguity to the Highway Code, only (as someone has pointed out) a matter of interpretation about what constitutes a busy road.

My references to "the cycling mafia" are an observation that there are individuals who cycle and cycle groups who pick and choose which parts of the Highway Code (and the law) which suit them vis a vie leaning heavily on the first part of a particular sentence and ignoring the second part of the sentence that doesn't suit them.

This is an impartial view based on facts with no agenda and were you to re-read my posts, you will see that I made it clear that were the two offenders riding motorcycles or driving cars, they'd be classed as equally stupid. I also made it clear that these TWO INDIVIDUALS were at fault, no others and certainly not all cyclists.

There is no animosity, only dispassionate debate and reading both the Highway Code and Road Traffic Act as they were written and not how some would hope it be interpreted.

Apologies if you feel as though this was an attack on cycling generally or you personally but I can assure you that it is not. I say again; only those two cyclists from the video are idiots, not all or the other cyclists in the video who did not hit or 'undertake' the horse.

I cannot however apologise for standing my ground on what the Highway Code and the Road Traffic Act say and I most certainly do not support a rogue police officer or force(s) who believe they have the right to re-write those publications because they do not.

There isn't any animosity. It's simply a case of differing views, especially when:

1/ Discussing one of the forum's hot topics: Apple, Audi, BMW, iPhone and... cyclists - to name but a few.
2/ Discussing the law with an ex policeman. GVM has guided this forum for many a year on the laws and regulations that surround us. Many a heated debate has benefitted from his timely input.​

On a lighter note, observing how preposterous (or intentionally humorous) written instructions can be, 30 years ago the 'Gents' in my local had a Durex machine on the wall with the words:

Put 50p in and pull knob out
.​

Very kind words; thank you. And you are correct; there is no animosity on my part, either towards a group or an individual..... other than the two ar**s who decided to hit a horse and rider for no apparent reason or purpose.