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
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.
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.
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.
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.
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”
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.
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.
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.
Don’t hate the cyclists, hate the government. We all want separate cycle lanes.
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.
Great image, however slightly wrong. In some countries car pictured should be a huge fucking truck which people use to go and buy Starbucks because of deadly combination of ego issues and laziness.
Canada is rapidly mirroring America with car centric design and “you’re only a man if you own a truck” mentality.
Canada is kind of split on between urban and rural it seems. The major Canadian cities are all investing tons of money into public transportation with mostly positive reception, but as soon as you get out of the metro area it’s basically hillbilly truck country.
I wish the diagram would have put little fart clouds labeled ‘Methane’ behind the bicyclists.
What I’m trying to say is that I crop dust a lot when I bike.
Fun fact, humans actually produce only trace amounts on methane in our farts because we’re not ruminants. Most of our farts are nitrogen swallowed from the air and CO2 produced by gut bacteria. The bad smelling chemicals are in even lower concentrations and barely make up a rounding error by volume, we simply evolved to be really sensitive to them because it’s beneficial to our survival to avoid poop.
You left out the part where the ones on the bikes are going the fraction of the speed
That’s only used in bike races, to act as a booster for extra speed/acceleration, much like a rocket does
And they left out that emergency vehicles and transit take up more room but really shouldn’t be blocked on speed just on argument of size and space alone. Not even cars would block based on ‘me smaller than them and take up less room’. So it’s a shit attitude and argument here all the way through about size and space as somehow more entitled.
So people saying the bikes side by side are a dick move are implying that you have more right to the road because you’re driving a car?
Generally speaking, to do an overtake, a car needs to leave the lane completely, so it doesn’t matter whether it’s one or two bikes.
It does matter. It’s safer for everyone if cyclists travel side by side in one lane because then the car driver has to spend less time in the oncoming lane to complete the overtake. A long string of bikes takes more time to safely pass.
It’s especially safer for the cyclists who risk getting side swiped and crushed by drivers trying to avoid going into the adjacent lane, and since cyclists have no steel box surrounding them, it’s a one sided battle that the car initiated in the first place. Riding side by side forces the car to do a normal, legal overtake by moving into the next lane.
Most of the streets around here were built when the idea that every house could have a car would be viewed as a fantasy.
So you’ve got cars parked up and down each side of the road, and if two cars want to pass each other, then you have to hope that there’s space for one of you to pull over.
If you want to overtake even one bike, forget it. It’s probably got some balaclava wearing kid on it, weaving none-handed up the middle of the road.
Those kinds of streets are actually the safest for everyone because they enforce lower speeds and more attentive driving than any posted speed limit ever can. People don’t give two shits about speed laws and will drive as fast as they feel they can, so when the road is not conducive to driving fast, surprise surprise people don’t drive fast and collisions are rarely deadly.
More info: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JbqNUqdZlwM
Would it be less of a dick move if it was a faster cyclist or a motorcyclist needing to pass by? No, it might actually be worse.
The point is that we need to do our best to respect other road users, regardless of their method of transportation. Pedestrians, cyclist, motorcyclists, cars, lorries and even animals (perhaps especially animals)
Any side-by-side vehicles increases the amount of space taken on the road, which means it should be avoided when other travellers need to pass by. It’s the same reason that lorries or cars travelling side-by-side at the same speed on the highway is often frowned upon.
I really don’t get people who want to wage a constant social war over our shared infrastructure by being assholes to each other. Being decent and considerate is safer and more pleasant for everybody involved.
A car takes up at least the width of two bikes by default. Why do they have the right to do that while bikes don’t?
Maybe we should focus more on overall efficiency and sustainability of our transport systems, and by that metric, cars shouldn’t even exist. A four lane road takes up the same width as a two track rail corridor and mixed use pedesterian/bike paths on either side, but can transport far more people per hour than private cars while being both cheaper in the long run and more environmentally friendly.
The answer is simple really. The car is one unit, the bikes (in this scenario) are two units, they don’t have to be considerate, but they have the option to do so.
I’ll give an equivalent example. Where I live we have a class of vehicles referred to as “moped cars”, same form factor as cars, but speed restricted to either 30 or 45 km/h. Usually they’re used by teens to get arouns in rural areas with poor public transit options, so they’ll often be trundling along on 70-90km/h roads at slow speed.
This can quickly lead to queues building up behind them during high traffic hours in areas with few passing opportunities. Quite often, when this happens, they’ll pull off to the side for a few seconds at an opportune spot to let other, faster vehicles, pass by. They don’t have to do this, but it is considerate.
As for the second half of your comment, each method of transportation has its niche and purpose. The best system is one that utilizes the strengths of each to complement the others. Attempting to apply a monolithic solution everywhere will generally lead to frustrations and inefficiencies.
Pedestrian - Trivial distances, any density.
Bike - Trivial -> Short distances, any density.
Cars - Short -> Long distances, low density.
Busses - Short -> Long distances, medium density.
Rail - Short -> Long distances, high density.
High Speed Rail - Medium -> Extreme distances, high density.
Air - Long -> Extreme distances, high density.
Because they can move fast enough to not be in the way for people behind them, since they are among the fastest vehicles on our roads. Bikes are considerably slower, which makes it more of a nuisance for those they’re sharing the road with if they can’t easily be passed.
Bike lanes are a good thing, and being courteous is a good thing- that goes both for passing when safe and being respectful of bike riders when you’re driving a car, and also for allowing cars to pass where possible when you’re moving significantly slower than the average traffic speed on a bicycle. It doesn’t have to be adversarial.
If my vehicle had the ability to change its width when I needed to, I’d agree with you, but my car does not have that option, the two bikes do, it wouldn’t take much effort for one to slide behind the other to let the vehicle behind pass, it’s a give and take with society, I’ll actively make sure to keep you safe from my vehicle, while bikes should actively try to allow larger or faster vehicles to pass safely instead of putting themselves at risk over something that takes no effort to do.
I’ll actively make sure to keep you safe from my vehicle
As someone who cycles on the road, I don’t trust you. Not in the slightest. Far too many close calls with cars trying to “sneak” by me because “oh I’m sure there’s plenty of room to the right” even in a bike-oriented city. I ride alone the vast majority of the time but having someone ride beside would actually make me feel safer because it means you actually have to perform a legal overtake which involves moving into the passing lane. Also, drivers are distracted all the time and I absolutely do not trust that every driver will actually notice a bike that’s off to their side when drivers are prone to straight up miss traffic lights that are right in front of their eyeline.
Ohh and I don’t trust the bikes I see riding around, the amount of people on bikes who have crossed In front of me while I’m driving the speed limit while never once looking behind them, causing me to have to slam my brakes on because I don’t want to hit someone on a bike.
Both sides of this argument need to show respect to each other on the road, it’s not a bikes are the problem or cars are the problem, people are the problem.
Like I said I actively try to ensure you guys are safe on the road when I pass you or see you coming up in front.
Are you really arguing that passing two bikes is the same maneuver as passing one? That second bike isn’t going to like it.
If those cyclists were blocking an ambulance or transit which even take up more room, those cyclists are the biggest assholes on the planet. Size really isn’t the best argument here.
Operative word here being “were”.
There is no ambulance in this picture, nor do you know if the bikers are “blocking up the road”.
Do you always make up stories about barking up imaginary trees in a fantasy forest?
Ambulance and transit are both very different arguments from a single car.
Both the bikes and the car are supposed to make room for the ambulance.
Regulation about right of way for buses probably changes a lot between jurisdictions, so I don’t really have anything to say about that.
Not at all if the argument is size alone or just spouting emissions. It’s a dumb cartoon to pair with the title.
So, you realize that the expected action from everyone on the road almost everywhere, regardless of the type of vehicle you’re using, is to pull to the side and stop as soon as you hear sirens specifically to prevent people from blocking emergency vehicles right? And since bikes are smaller and more nimble, they can do that much more effectively than a car.
Regardless, real world data shows that there are far more cases of cars blocking emergency vehicles than bikes, so you’re demonizing the wrong mode of transport on behalf of the ambulances here.
