Cycle Lane Use

houseimprover

I was driving home tonight and noticed in the cycle lane instead of riding one behind another that two cyclists were riding aside of each other.

Are there any rules to riding on a cycle lane or were what they were doing acceptable? (the one on the right did ride close to the line and did slip over it at least once)

This is just intrigue cheers.

Southend1

houseimprover wrote: »

I was driving home tonight and noticed in the cycle lane instead of riding one behind another that two cyclists were riding aside of each other.

Are there any rules to riding on a cycle lane or were what they were doing acceptable? (the one on the right did ride close to the line and did slip over it at least once)

This is just intrigue cheers.

Were they in anyone's way, causing a nuisance or acting dangerously? If not then live and let live.

houseimprover

Southend1 wrote: »

Were they in anyone's way, causing a nuisance or acting dangerously? If not then live and let live.

To be fair, I did say it was just intrigue as it is something I don't see often.

hugheskevi

Riding in a cycle lane is optional (Rule 63 of Highway Code) and basically the same as riding on a road:

Cycle Lanes. These are marked by a white line (which may be broken) along the carriageway (see Rule 140). Keep within the lane when practicable. When leaving a cycle lane check before pulling out that it is safe to do so and signal your intention clearly to other road users. Use of cycle lanes is not compulsory and will depend on your experience and skills, but they can make your journey safer.

And cycling two abreast is okay, Rule 66 says:

You should...never ride more than two abreast, and ride in single file on narrow or busy roads and when riding round bends

So what they were doing is acceptable, but if they were getting in the way of other cyclists or vehicles would often be thought to be inconsiderate - especially if they were cycling slowly.

katejo

hugheskevi wrote: »

Riding in a cycle lane is optional (Rule 63 of Highway Code) and basically the same as riding on a road:



And cycling two abreast is okay, Rule 66 says:



So what they were doing is acceptable, but if they were getting in the way of other cyclists or vehicles would often be thought to be inconsiderate - especially if they were cycling slowly.

would not work on the lanes near my work which are dual direction. Would have a collision pretty soon

skaterboy

How sociable, two cyclists having a chat on the way to work.

Just like a car driver chatting to their passenger.

I see no issues here?

WiggyDiggyPoo

houseimprover wrote: »

I was driving home tonight and noticed in the cycle lane instead of riding one behind another that two cyclists were riding aside of each other.

Are there any rules to riding on a cycle lane or were what they were doing acceptable? (the one on the right did ride close to the line and did slip over it at least once)

This is just intrigue cheers.

I think they've done well to squeeze themselves into 1 lane! A lot of the one's near me are less than 0.5m wide including the gutter.



http://homepage.ntlworld.com/pete.meg/wcc/facility-of-the-month/November2013.htm

Heycock

As long as they're not putting other road users at risk, don't see a problem. Certainly nothing illegal about it. But awareness comes into it and if another cyclist is coming up behind them, assuming of course they use their bell to warn of their approach (yeh...I know half of urban cyclists aren't even aware whether they've got a bell or not, let alone how to use it!) then the outside rider should pull over rather than force the rider behind to go into the road. Courtesy really, but too often lacking amongst our more militant brethren.

WiggyDiggyPoo

Heycock wrote: »

As long as they're not putting other road users at risk, don't see a problem. Certainly nothing illegal about it. But awareness comes into it and if another cyclist is coming up behind them, assuming of course they use their bell to warn of their approach (yeh...I know half of urban cyclists aren't even aware whether they've got a bell or not, let alone how to use it!) then the outside rider should pull over rather than force the rider behind to go into the road. Courtesy really, but too often lacking amongst our more militant brethren.

Why should they move? If was the faster cyclist behind I'd simply use sensible shoulder checks to pick the right time to overtake, likewise if I was been overtaken I certainly wouldn't expect someone to start ringing their bell behind me and definitely wouldn't move over.

There's nothing militant about that BTW Its simply cycling without a sense of self importance that all must move from my path!

Rotor

WiggyDiggyPoo wrote: »

Why should they move? If was the faster cyclist behind I'd simply use sensible shoulder checks to pick the right time to overtake, likewise if I was been overtaken I certainly wouldn't expect someone to start ringing their bell behind me and definitely wouldn't move over.

There's nothing militant about that BTW Its simply cycling without a sense of self importance that all must move from my path!

So you would force the overtaking cyclist into faster moving traffic or to wait behind, not because you would have to stop, not because you would have to slow down, but because you might have to stop talking to your mate for 10 seconds!

It might not be illegal but , truely, it is ignorance of an olympic standard.

WiggyDiggyPoo

Rotor wrote: »

So you would force the overtaking cyclist into faster moving traffic or to wait behind, not because you would have to stop, not because you would have to slow down, but because you might have to stop talking to your mate for 10 seconds!

It might not be illegal but , truely, it is ignorance of an olympic standard.

Yes.

As I said the onus is on the person wishing to pass to pick a sensible point and use it, not to proceed along expecting all and sundry to shift out of their way.

Who is ignorant, me for expecting fellow cyclists to have a reasonable standard of roadsense or the cyclist with blinkers on who's incapable of deviating from their set path?