Single file or two by two.

Every so often I get into a discussion about groups of cyclists riding two
by two instead of in single file. My view is that if you ride two by two,
bunch style, you actually make life easier for motorists. The alternative
is a line of bikes strung out over double the distance (and with many
"leisure cyclists" even more because they can't/won't keep close together.)
As a motorist I'd rather have to make a single, short overtaking maneuver
than have to overtake a long line of bikes, especially if the line is strung
out with big gaps.

I recognise there will be circumstances where a single file is the correct
formation but I actually believe they are pretty limited.

Graham Harrison wrote:

Every so often I get into a discussion about groups of cyclists
riding two by two instead of in single file. My view is that if you
ride two by two, bunch style, you actually make life easier for
motorists. The alternative is a line of bikes strung out over
double the distance (and with many "leisure cyclists" even more
because they can't/won't keep close together.) As a motorist I'd
rather have to make a single, short overtaking maneuver than have to
overtake a long line of bikes, especially if the line is strung out
with big gaps.
I recognise there will be circumstances where a single file is the
correct formation but I actually believe they are pretty limited.

A long single file is not going to stay single file for long as the cyclist
at the front will be using about 50% more energy than those sat behind. The
result will be that the front man (or woman) will tire and slow causing the
others to want to pass which will mean that there will need to be 2 lines as
the tired cyclists drop back for a breather. I often pass groups of
cyclists 2 abreast in the car and it's rare to get stuck behind the group
for long.

Graham Harrison wrote:
Every so often I get into a discussion about groups of cyclists riding
two by two instead of in single file. My view is that if you ride two
by two, bunch style, you actually make life easier for motorists. The
alternative is a line of bikes strung out over double the distance (and
with many "leisure cyclists" even more because they can't/won't keep
close together.) As a motorist I'd rather have to make a single, short
overtaking maneuver than have to overtake a long line of bikes,
especially if the line is strung out with big gaps.

I recognise there will be circumstances where a single file is the
correct formation but I actually believe they are pretty limited.

Single file means many motorists will just start going past without
worrying about whether they can get past everyone. When they can't, they
move left into whoever they're overtaking at the time. A bunch will
sometimes stop them starting to pass, and will increase the chance that
any overtaking manoeuvre attempted can be completed.

But it does depend on group size. There comes a point where they can't
safely overtake at all. Which is probably why a cyclist on a large group
ride got hit and killed on the A5 a few weeks ago.

Colin McKenzie

--
No-one has ever proved that cycle helmets make cycling any safer at the
population level, and anyway cycling is about as safe per mile as walking.
Make an informed choice - visit www.cyclehelmets.org.

"Adrian Boliston" writes:

A long single file is not going to stay single file for long as the cyclist
at the front will be using about 50% more energy than those sat behind. The
result will be that the front man (or woman) will tire and slow causing the
others to want to pass which will mean that there will need to be 2 lines as
the tired cyclists drop back for a breather. I often pass groups of
cyclists 2 abreast in the car and it's rare to get stuck behind the group
for long.

Maybe on a training run, yes, but on the average recreational group
ride this is a non-issue: (a) they typically don't go that fast, and
(b) most riders at this level don't have the group riding skills to
follow safely right on someone's wheel, so the aerodynamic effect will
be lessened anyway.

I think a lot of the two-abreast whining comes from drivers who think
cyclists should be in the gutter so they can overtake without moving
right anyway. Sure, I've sometimes seen cyclists who really are
unaware of the traffic behind them, but it's rare - most groups I've
ridden with are usually pretty good about calling "car back" or similar.


-dan

On Aug 28, 8:36 pm, "Graham Harrison"
wrote:
Every so often I get into a discussion about groups of cyclists riding two
by two instead of in single file. My view is that if you ride two by two,
bunch style, you actually make life easier for motorists. The alternative
is a line of bikes strung out over double the distance (and with many
"leisure cyclists" even more because they can't/won't keep close together.)
As a motorist I'd rather have to make a single, short overtaking maneuver
than have to overtake a long line of bikes, especially if the line is strung
out with big gaps.

I recognise there will be circumstances where a single file is the correct
formation but I actually believe they are pretty limited.

I've got no argument with that. Unfortunately a small number of
militant cyclists (who appear to believe that motorists shouldn't be
overtaking them at all, ever, probably because they think that they
shouldn't even be there) abuse the two-abreast allowance by riding,
very slowly, side-by-side when they know perfectly well that the
road's too narrow for motorists to get past. But thankfully such oafs
are few and far between, and the vast majority of cyclists only go
side-by-side when it's feasible (and also cooperate with motorists in
general, rather than going out of their way to irritate them in
Spindrift-esque fashion).

The trouble is that, as with the small number of cyclists who jump
RLJs, such lycra louts give all cyclists a bad name, as they tend to
be the cyclists that other road users remember the most. Those on
this group who are really pro-cyclist (rather than anti-motorist)
should concentrate on dealing with such militant lycra louts instead
of advocating silly things like speed cameras. And they can start by
dealing with Spindrift and the Crapmeister General. Getting rid of
the lycra louts would do far more for the cycling cause than any
number of killing/motorist-banning machines. Stop persecuting the
responsible motorcyclist who's harmlessly using a bus lane, and the
safe driver who's going at 35mph in a limit that should be 40mph, and
turn your attention to those cyclists who continue to tarnish your
reputation so.

Talking of Psycho Spindrift, he admitted the other day that when a
motorist comes up behind him and he decides that the motorist has been
going too fast, he deliberately gets in the motorist's way to "punish"
them and compensate for the time that they've supposedly gained by
going "too fast". Talk about being so obsessed with other people's
supposed misdemeanors that you don't pay enough attention to your own
driving/riding (he apparently "polices" others whether he's cycling or
(boo, hiss) driving). And how unbelievably arrogant to decide that
everyone has to go below whatever speed *he* decides is the maximum
safe one. It really is beyond the pale, but then with Spindrift, it
almost always is. Issuing vicious threats to workplaces full of
innocent people: how low is that?

Hi Dan The Man! How's it jolly well going?

On Aug 28, 11:08*pm, Daniel Barlow wrote:
I think a lot of the two-abreast whining comes from drivers who think
cyclists should be in the gutter so they can overtake without moving
right anyway.

Strange. I've never come across a single driver who thinks that, and
I can't recall seeing a driver overtake a cyclist without moving right
except on wide or multi-lane roads where there's plenty of room. You
wouldn't be maligning motorists just for the sake of it by any chance,
would you? Are you doing it to get cred in uk.rec.anti-motorist?

All the vast majority of drivers want is for cyclists to cooperate and
be reasonable and courteous. Thankfully, almost all of them are.

Nuxx Bar writes:

Strange. I've never come across a single driver who thinks that, and

That's probably because you don't cycle. I have.

I can't recall seeing a driver overtake a cyclist without moving right
except on wide or multi-lane roads where there's plenty of room. You

That's probably because you don't cycle. If you did, you would have
plenty more opportunities to notice them. I have.

In any case, the existence of this attitude among some people can
readily be deduced by observing the narrow gutter-hugging cycle lanes
that are often seen on our roads. I admit that I have no evidence for
my assumption that the traffic planners and council officials
responsible for these things do actually drive cars, but since the
vast majority of adults drive cars from time to time it doesn't seem
an improbable one.

wouldn't be maligning motorists just for the sake of it by any chance,
would you? Are you doing it to get cred in uk.rec.anti-motorist?

All the vast majority of drivers want is for cyclists to cooperate and
be reasonable and courteous. Thankfully, almost all of them are.

As are the vast majority of cyclists - so what?

I'm not interested in an argument about the relative proportions of
asshole motorists and asshole cyclists. It's clear that both exist -
one of the former ("novice" or something, expressing a wish that
recumbent riders would get run over? Cant remember exactly) was even
posting here a week or so ago.


-dan

Graham Harrison wrote:
Every so often I get into a discussion about groups of cyclists riding
two by two instead of in single file. My view is that if you ride two
by two, bunch style, you actually make life easier for motorists. The
alternative is a line of bikes strung out over double the distance (and
with many "leisure cyclists" even more because they can't/won't keep
close together.) As a motorist I'd rather have to make a single, short
overtaking maneuver than have to overtake a long line of bikes,
especially if the line is strung out with big gaps.

I recognise there will be circumstances where a single file is the
correct formation but I actually believe they are pretty limited.



1.
Cyclists are entitled to be on the road

2.
They do not have to get off and push, ride in the ditch, or give way to motorists.

3.
If a motorist can't overtake two cyclists side by side then there isn't enough
room to overtake one.[1]

4.
A cyclist is absolutely fully entitled to use as much of the road as they need.
It is the CYCLIST'S judgement that is to be respected here.

*The above is to try and forestall the various responders who miss the point or
who have some vague opinion about should/should-not.


IMHO Two abreast is good for up to half a dozen (I've never cycled in a bigger
group). But, especially if there are only a few of you then falling into single
file when you meet another vehicle (I cycle mostly on back lanes) gives the
maximum space (space=safety buffer) between you and the threat.


I have followed bunches of 'racer' cyclist in my motor car and it doesn't make a
h'aporth of difference whether they're single or bunched because as (say) a
group of 20 you can't overtake some.


It's something that cyclists have to live with: There will be people behind in
motorcars who are held up for a couple of minutes perhaps - so what? The roads
are for ALL of us.


[1]
There are many drivers who are so feeble they follow you for miles down country
lanes when they would quite happily pass another car coming in the other
direction - /their problem/!

--
Peter (Prof) Fox
Multitude of things for beer, cycling, Morris and curiosities at
http://vulpeculox.net
2 Tees Close, Witham, Essex 01376 517206

"Peter Fox" wrote in message
...

http://vulpeculox.net

No, the bubbling thing won't work. The gas won't lift the water in the
manner you describe. Sorry.

cheers,
clive

On Aug 29, 1:31*am, "Clive George" wrote:
"Peter Fox" wrote in message

...

http://vulpeculox.net

No, the bubbling thing won't work. The gas won't lift the water in the
manner you describe. Sorry.

cheers,
clive

Well, depending on the diameter of the column and the quantity of gas
released, there might be a little water out of the top initially. But
there won't be a continuous flow of water out of the top because
there's none being drawn in at the bottom to replace it. Anyway, the
whole concept relies on using electrical power to generate more energy
than's being put into the system, which is nonsense.
--
Dave