Is the UK the worst place in the world to cycle?

[Rough101]

It’s the worst in Western Europe.

USA is definitely worse, France, Spain etc. miles better.

[Roger Irrelevant]

ChocolateFrog said:

Roger Irrelevant said:

A lot of places are better but I imagine a lot of places are far worse. I can well imagine the US is generally pretty bad - in vast swathes of it they've elevated the sort of third-world redneck 'might is right' thinking that you see quite a bit of on here to an art form, and the only things that seem to register on their radar when driving are big rigs and fast food outlets - anything else gets blithely ignored and quite possibly driven into. Having said that in the small bits where they realise that bikes are a thing - e.g. Moab, Boulder etc, it can be brilliant.

I know a few people who have done Race Across America and a couple who have cycled top to bottom on the West Coast.

I don't think it's as bad. Generally quieter and generally wider roads.

I also don't think the angry, self important types are quite as prevalent.

Possibly. It does seem that they are generally more chilled out when driving, but the impression I get is that they take that a bit too far a lot of the time such that actually concentrating on the road is third or fourth on their list of priorities. Plus I'm sure that you get more genuine nutters in the Jesusy bits.

I've got to say that I've never had a lot of bother when cycling in the UK. I'm not sure I've ever had more than one noteworthy incident in a month let alone seven in one ride like the OP, which seems really odd. But then I have done virtually all my cycling in rural bits of the north, where people are nice.

[alock]

ChocolateFrog said:

kambites said:

I prefer to encounter two cyclists abreast of each other than two cycling in line because I only have to perform one overtake.

And it halves the distance and reduces the time exposed to danger as already highlighted in this thread.

The people who that doesn't apply to are the types who overtake without crossing the white line. The ones who want cyclists to ride within 3 inches of the cracked edge of the tarmac.

For context. I cycle a lot. Currently averaging over 100 miles per week this year, so I'm not anti-cyclist.

The issue with the two-abreast issue is that it's often quoted or applied as an absolute rule with no allowance for the actual conditions. A trunk road with full lanes in either direction is very different from the unclassified country roads many cyclists spend more time riding on.

I regularly come across pairs of cyclists riding two-abreast on roads like this, which makes overtaking impossible while leaving the required 1.5m.

[mac96]

Going back to the initial example, regardless of fault for the initial collision, what sort of st leaves an injured woman in a country lane, and then decides to go back, not to help, but to be rude and offensive ?

[911Spanker]

Is riding 2 abreast just so they can have a chat?

[Baroque attacks]

Vasco said:

Utter twaddle.

Determined to ride two abreast at all times and on all types of roads is never going to make many friends. It's not a legal issue, it's just good common sense where everybody should try to help other road users.

Have you actually ridden very far abroad?

I’ve ridden something like 10,000 miles abroad (Europe, bit in Africa, chunk in Canada and the US).

The problem which is usually the cause are ‘car drivers’ getting all angry at ‘cyclists’ as though Lance Armstrong banged their wife.

It’s a very odd mentality.

[Rusty Old-Banger]

Roger Irrelevant said:

I've got to say that I've never had a lot of bother when cycling in the UK. I'm not sure I've ever had more than one noteworthy incident in a month let alone seven in one ride like the OP, which seems really odd.

I wonder if it's not just because they were 2 abreast, but 8 ranks long too, making a much larger rolling obstruction. We have all seen the pelotons of riders, all in club jerseys, making very little effort to work "with" traffic. I find it very very hard to believe that an innocent rider, riding well and sympathetically to the rest of the traffic flow (and the majority of car drivers do), would be shouted at 7 times for just riding. I don't mean the cyclist(s) kowtowing to the drivers, not at all - but read the road, read the situation, if you have a queue then maybe the better option is to allow them to pass. Better to have the big dangerous cagers in front of you where you can see them - and even get a draft off them - than behind you getting all angry.

It's not about "it's my right", it's about "doing the right thing" - from all users.

[-Lummox-]

Oh look, another "entitled road users fume about entitled road users" thread!

And once again can probably be summed up by saying there are bad road users in all forms of transport, including walking, cycling and driving - and the situation could be vastly improved by everyone being a bit more thoughtful and considerate of everyone else's right to use the road - rather than trying to impose a heirachy of worthiness.

As for the knuckle-dragging "PAY YER TAAAXXXXX!!!!" types... "road tax" as it's commonly and wrongly referred to is calculated on emissions, emissions of a bicycle are zero, so cyclists are already ready paying the applicable amount of "road tax" for the emissions of their vehicle - £0.

[Lotobear]

911Spanker said:

Is riding 2 abreast just so they can have a chat?

It's called dominating the blacktop and usually the preserve of middle aged alpha males in Rapha gear and wrap around mirrored glasses

[Diderot]

I always like to leave cyclists a lot of space when I overtake - ideally I always go to the other side of the road; I never squeeze past unlike some people I see.

But there are certain roads, however, where cyclists do cause a lot of traffic issues, especially in summer. And I wonder how much fun it must be riding on them. I certainly wouldn’t. I’m thinking particularly here of the A286 from Chichester to West Wittering. The A286 is constantly so busy in both directions during the day, with lots of blind corners: that inevitably it’s nigh on impossible to get past a cyclist or group of cyclists safely. So, inevitably, very long lines of traffic build up, often in both directions, and then you get problems where dangerous and desperate overtakes are made. There is a good cycle route between Chichester and West Wittering (Salterns Way), but it’s a scenic route so not suited to fast road riding. Not sure what the solution is apart from mandating that between certain hours at certain periods, cyclists must use the cycle route,

[Red9zero]

I don't mind cyclists two abreast, or in tight groups, but what annoys me are the groups of retired people meandering along normally in ones or twos with a gap not quite large enough to pull into. It is impossible to safely overtake them without a long straight stretch of road, so there will invariably be a huge queue of cars etc behind them, as they won't pullover until they reach the next tea shop.

[Robertb]

Australia from what I've read seems to be the worst. You are in the intersection of of a Venn diagram of four-door 'utes', anti-cyclist road and legal system, and aggressive magpies.

For the anti-cyclists among us, do an experiment: on the next few drives you do, add up your time spent being held up by HGVs, tractors, people in small hatchbacks doing 41 mph, having to wait behind cars parked on the road outside shops, mopeds etc, and compare that to the time spent being held up by cyclists. Cyclists delay you by a vanishingly small amount. And every cyclist you see in an urban area is not in a car which you would otherwise be stuck behind.

As for the 4x4 guy in the OP's article, he needs a spell behind bars.

[bobbo89]

-Lummox- said:

Oh look, another "entitled road users fume about entitled road users" thread!

And once again can probably be summed up by saying there are bad road users in all forms of transport, including walking, cycling and driving - and the situation could be vastly improved by everyone being a bit more thoughtful and considerate of everyone else's right to use the road - rather than trying to impose a heirachy of worthiness.

As for the knuckle-dragging "PAY YER TAAAXXXXX!!!!" types... "road tax" as it's commonly and wrongly referred to is calculated on emissions, emissions of a bicycle are zero, so cyclists are already ready paying the applicable amount of "road tax" for the emissions of their vehicle - £0.

[Vasco]

alock said:

ChocolateFrog said:

kambites said:

I prefer to encounter two cyclists abreast of each other than two cycling in line because I only have to perform one overtake.

And it halves the distance and reduces the time exposed to danger as already highlighted in this thread.

The people who that doesn't apply to are the types who overtake without crossing the white line. The ones who want cyclists to ride within 3 inches of the cracked edge of the tarmac.

For context. I cycle a lot. Currently averaging over 100 miles per week this year, so I'm not anti-cyclist.

The issue with the two-abreast issue is that it's often quoted or applied as an absolute rule with no allowance for the actual conditions. A trunk road with full lanes in either direction is very different from the unclassified country roads many cyclists spend more time riding on.

I regularly come across pairs of cyclists riding two-abreast on roads like this, which makes overtaking impossible while leaving the required 1.5m.

Yes, absolutely. Fairly narrow (typical in the UK) roads where whole groups of the lycra clad fanatics like to ride however they like (usually at weekends) - making out that they have no knowledge of you being stuck behind.
Others on here seem to be talking of wider, main, roads here or abroad.

[Roger Irrelevant]

Rusty Old-Banger said:

Roger Irrelevant said:

I've got to say that I've never had a lot of bother when cycling in the UK. I'm not sure I've ever had more than one noteworthy incident in a month let alone seven in one ride like the OP, which seems really odd.

I wonder if it's not just because they were 2 abreast, but 8 ranks long too, making a much larger rolling obstruction. We have all seen the pelotons of riders, all in club jerseys, making very little effort to work "with" traffic. I find it very very hard to believe that an innocent rider, riding well and sympathetically to the rest of the traffic flow (and the majority of car drivers do), would be shouted at 7 times for just riding. I don't mean the cyclist(s) kowtowing to the drivers, not at all - but read the road, read the situation, if you have a queue then maybe the better option is to allow them to pass. Better to have the big dangerous cagers in front of you where you can see them - and even get a draft off them - than behind you getting all angry.

It's not about "it's my right", it's about "doing the right thing" - from all users.

Totally agree - and I've never really liked riding in groups larger than three or four for the reason that it does get really difficult for that group to work well together to help other traffic. OK, If you've got eight confident riders who are used to riding in close proximity, who know what the call is to file out, and know how to do so quickly, then it can be fine. But what often happens is you get eight riders who aren't used to riding with each other, and so by the time they've all understood that they should be filing out, have faffed about doing so, and have ended up spread along 30m of road, the opportunity to allow traffic past has gone. Yes it would be nice if the drivers involved had an infinite well of patience but it's not reasonable to expect that, so most times I've been in larger groups I have ended up thinking 'Oh god we're being tts here'. Now my 'group rides' are just me and a couple of mates, and they're all the better for it.

[Rusty Old-Banger]

bobbo89 said:

-Lummox- said:

Oh look, another "entitled road users fume about entitled road users" thread!

And once again can probably be summed up by saying there are bad road users in all forms of transport, including walking, cycling and driving - and the situation could be vastly improved by everyone being a bit more thoughtful and considerate of everyone else's right to use the road - rather than trying to impose a heirachy of worthiness.

As for the knuckle-dragging "PAY YER TAAAXXXXX!!!!" types... "road tax" as it's commonly and wrongly referred to is calculated on emissions, emissions of a bicycle are zero, so cyclists are already ready paying the applicable amount of "road tax" for the emissions of their vehicle - £0.

Nobody has mentioned tax in this thread that I can see. I think that ridiculous notion is thankfully dying a death now.

[-Lummox-]

I do wonder sometimes if leisure cyclists are a bit more precious about gaps than those that commute by bike. I fall into the latter class and ride a bicycle 4 days a week, every week, all year, covering around 10k miles p.a. - half of that includes central London in rush hour traffic. Been doing this for around a decade.

I don't feel the need to wear lycra doing it, I try to keep over to the side of the road as far as possible (avoiding metalwork and any kerbside scuzziness that may cause punctures). I regularly get passed by vehicles much closer than 1.5m and yet have not been crashed into by any of them.

At the same time, I'm acutely aware that despite being a fairly large human, I'm one of the smallest and most vulnerable road users so I don't take the mickey or ride aggressively, expect people to get out of my way etc and just try to move with the flow of traffic without getting in anyone's way as much as possible.

Ironically, for me, I find the most aggression and verbal abuse I tend to experience when riding is from pedestrians walking on cycle paths / in cycle lanes and being furiously outraged at bicycles wanting to use them...

[Kerniki]

ChocolateFrog said:

Kerniki said:

ChocolateFrog said:

Kerniki said:

When did the two abreast thing start?

Records show serious injuries have steadily climbed since 2004 but not sure if the % of population cycling on the roads has increased which could account for the number increase, helmet use has increased at the same time so would help curtail the serious injury count, lots of factors i guess but i cant see riding two abreast as helping the cause to avoid accidents / injury tbh, certainly antagonises drivers which cant be good when you’re on a bike vs 2t of metal.

Classic victim blaming.

Why do you in your 2t vehicle have more right to that space than someone without the protection of a few tons of metal.

Single or two abreast shouldn't make a blind bit of difference to your ability to overtake. You still need a gap in the traffic coming the other way.

It was more a question about wether the two abreast has in fact made it safer for cyclists or not since it’s advent, I don’t know as it’s hard to decipher from the stats available..

You can’t escape the difference of mass and vulnerability, irrespective of rights, more about self preservation tbh, having common sense to not put yourself in more dangerous situations, I’m very self aware of this when riding

If you ride in the gutter it encourages dangerous overtakes at inappropriate places and times.

You should try conducting your own experiments. The more space you give up the more space 10% of ahole drivers will take.

There seems to be quite a lot of anger in there.. maybe not riding in the gutter is a good idea to maybe.. there’s a healthy compromise?

Anyway, question was, still.. has two abreast helped safety for the more vulnerable of the two parties? or has it made things worse?

Don’t know, I’m not suggesting anyone rides a specific way other than which is safest

[CellarDoor]

Vasco said:

alock said:

ChocolateFrog said:

kambites said:

I prefer to encounter two cyclists abreast of each other than two cycling in line because I only have to perform one overtake.

And it halves the distance and reduces the time exposed to danger as already highlighted in this thread.

The people who that doesn't apply to are the types who overtake without crossing the white line. The ones who want cyclists to ride within 3 inches of the cracked edge of the tarmac.

For context. I cycle a lot. Currently averaging over 100 miles per week this year, so I'm not anti-cyclist.

The issue with the two-abreast issue is that it's often quoted or applied as an absolute rule with no allowance for the actual conditions. A trunk road with full lanes in either direction is very different from the unclassified country roads many cyclists spend more time riding on.

I regularly come across pairs of cyclists riding two-abreast on roads like this, which makes overtaking impossible while leaving the required 1.5m.

Yes, absolutely. Fairly narrow (typical in the UK) roads where whole groups of the lycra clad fanatics like to ride however they like (usually at weekends) - making out that they have no knowledge of you being stuck behind.
Others on here seem to be talking of wider, main, roads here or abroad.

What should happen in these instances? Driver waits behind cyclists for x miles until road widens, driver beeps to indicate their presence, cyclists ride single file, cyclists pull over, etc?

[768]

CellarDoor said:

What should happen in these instances? Driver waits behind cyclists for x miles until road widens, driver beeps to indicate their presence, cyclists ride single file, cyclists pull over, etc?

Whatever works to ensure the slow moving vehicle doesn't hold up traffic. I'd think single file would be sufficient in the image, but they should pull over if not.