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.
Because the image assumes that a driver can only ever safely overtake if they’re completely in the other lane, which simply isn’t true.
It also assumes that there will be an opportunity where the other lane is completely free for them to move into it.
Overtaking eight people in a line is going to have a large time saving if they’re cycling in twos, but when you scale that down to just two then the difference is negligible and the space saving is more important.
Your theory rests on the assumption that I value my life and safety lower than two seconds the driver could shave off of their journey time. Or thirty seconds. Or two days.
Well, buddy, you’re wrong.
Even if I’m riding alone I’m not riding in the gutter where I have a greater risk of puncture from debris, and a greater risk of some idiot close passing in a 3 ton umbrella.
Have a closer read of points 2 and 3 in the image. For most lanes there isn’t enough width for cyclist + wobbling side to side + 1.5m margin + car. So the car needs to overtake in the other lane, which means the other lane needs to be completely free of cars.
It’s superficially convincing but if it was true you wouldn’t need an infographic. Drivers would notice for themselves that it’s better for them. In practice it’s easy to overtake cyclists in a line and impossible to overtake them side-by-side. I’ve never overtaken side-by-side cyclists in my life, when that happens you’re stuck behind them until they make a turn.
What actually happens is, like the footnote says, cyclists doing this take up the whole lane, they don’t tuck in like image 4, so point 3 and 4 are both false.
3 is wrong because having enough time to pull to the center doesn’t mean you have enough time to pull fully into the other lane and back. A safe overtake is made impossible because the required time is longer.
4 is wrong because with cyclists across the lane you get just as close to them when fully in the other lane as in image 1, and it’s just as dangerous as in-lane overtaking.
5 is just dumb. Both groups take the same time to overtake because of the extra time taken to pull over, and you have way more opportunities to straddle overtake, not to mention the side-by-side groups blocking visibility reducing opportunities even further.
I commute by bike every day and don’t own a car, I will fully block lanes when I don’t want to be overtaken, but I still think this is annoying selfish behavior.
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”
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…
Never been to a country where road cycling is massive then? Try living in anyplace that has Alps in it lol
You’re right. I live in a city and have never seen more than four people cycling together.
It’s almost like cycling in the alps is a niche situation, and cycling in cities happens much more frequently 🤔
That all depends on the type of cycling, and what you call a city
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.
Because the image assumes that a driver can only ever safely overtake if they’re completely in the other lane, which simply isn’t true.
It also assumes that there will be an opportunity where the other lane is completely free for them to move into it.
Overtaking eight people in a line is going to have a large time saving if they’re cycling in twos, but when you scale that down to just two then the difference is negligible and the space saving is more important.
I don’t think you understand the point of the image
Your theory rests on the assumption that I value my life and safety lower than two seconds the driver could shave off of their journey time. Or thirty seconds. Or two days.
Well, buddy, you’re wrong.
Even if I’m riding alone I’m not riding in the gutter where I have a greater risk of puncture from debris, and a greater risk of some idiot close passing in a 3 ton umbrella.
Have a closer read of points 2 and 3 in the image. For most lanes there isn’t enough width for cyclist + wobbling side to side + 1.5m margin + car. So the car needs to overtake in the other lane, which means the other lane needs to be completely free of cars.
It’s superficially convincing but if it was true you wouldn’t need an infographic. Drivers would notice for themselves that it’s better for them. In practice it’s easy to overtake cyclists in a line and impossible to overtake them side-by-side. I’ve never overtaken side-by-side cyclists in my life, when that happens you’re stuck behind them until they make a turn.
What actually happens is, like the footnote says, cyclists doing this take up the whole lane, they don’t tuck in like image 4, so point 3 and 4 are both false.
3 is wrong because having enough time to pull to the center doesn’t mean you have enough time to pull fully into the other lane and back. A safe overtake is made impossible because the required time is longer.
4 is wrong because with cyclists across the lane you get just as close to them when fully in the other lane as in image 1, and it’s just as dangerous as in-lane overtaking.
5 is just dumb. Both groups take the same time to overtake because of the extra time taken to pull over, and you have way more opportunities to straddle overtake, not to mention the side-by-side groups blocking visibility reducing opportunities even further.
I commute by bike every day and don’t own a car, I will fully block lanes when I don’t want to be overtaken, but I still think this is annoying selfish behavior.
That’s a shit argument.
deleted by creator
Because it’s SAFER. Oh my god, have we really got so selfish that a human life is worth like a second.
Removed by mod
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”