Cycle Roundabouts

Rule 66 of the Highway Code states that cyclists “should never ride more than two abreast, and ride in single file on narrow or busy roads and when riding round bends”. In addition, rule 68 says cyclists “MUST NOT ride in a dangerous, careless or inconsiderate manner”.

Can someone tell them please !!!!!
 
Rule 66 of the Highway Code states that cyclists “should never ride more than two abreast, and ride in single file on narrow or busy roads and when riding round bends”. In addition, rule 68 says cyclists “MUST NOT ride in a dangerous, careless or inconsiderate manner”.

Can someone tell them please !!!!!

Is it illegal to ride two abreast then?
 
I dont think so - courteous but not illegal so largely it doesn't happen unless, as it says above and then rarely. Round here 6m is wide and the roads are very 'meandering' so packs of Sunday cyclists are a regular menace don't blow your horn though unless you have a side facing dashcam - to catch the abuse.
 
Why not? Er....for the lengthy list of perfectly good reasons that have meant that for the past 150 years, cyclists don't. How long does it take to get over it?
ask 10000 car/ lorry drivers there views on cyclists / cycling / riders attitudes. you may find that you are a very small minority . And if it was put to the public ( about taxing and insurance for cyclist's). you may be very upset at the outcome of that to ".
 
...to the detriment of the vast majority who want the advantages the modern world brings.
You speak as if it were somehow to the detriment of the vast majority to deny them the alleged advantages of 'the modern world'.
Anyhow, leaving rapidly this unseemly deployment of the fallacy of popular opinion, I shall simply quote the amusing and pertinent quip from a public information road sign which I pass daily: 'You're not stuck in traffic - you are traffic!'
The cyclist, of course, is not stuck in the traffic and is therefore denied the opportunity to update his Facebook page in the manner of the modern motor-commuter.
There's no justice!
 
Not according to rule 66 of the Highway Code.

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

Not according to rule 66 of the Highway Code.

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

:coat: :coat:
 
I think the line directly under the title says it all. "Motorists must give way to pedestrians and to cyclists when joining and leaving the Fendon Road roundabout in Cambridge"

Surely that is the case anyway. If someone is waiting at a pedestrian crossing, you are obliged to stop for them if safe to do so and if a bike is on the roundabout it has the same right of way as any other vehicle and you are not allowed to cut it up to get on or of the roundabout. Just pay attention to the road markings.
 
I think the line directly under the title says it all. "Motorists must give way to pedestrians and to cyclists when joining and leaving the Fendon Road roundabout in Cambridge"

Surely that is the case anyway. If someone is waiting at a pedestrian crossing, you are obliged to stop for them if safe to do so and if a bike is on the roundabout it has the same right of way as any other vehicle and you are not allowed to cut it up to get on or of the roundabout. Just pay attention to the road markings.

Not quite - if a cyclist on a special 'ring' or cycleway crosses the path of a motorist on the otherwise uncontrolled EXIT of the roundabout the motorist must give way. Given what you say (the rest I believe to be correct) moving cyclists who wish to circulate past an exit, down a dual purpose footway to a ped. crossing/Toucan crossing, might save the better part of £2.5M. A family member is down there - I will ask what its like - he's also a transport engineer.
 
We get regular outings by several local cycle clubs each week and they ride in packs of up to 25 riders and sometimes more. They ride up to 3 or even 4 abreast so basically take up half the road, never ever ride in groups of just 3 or 4 leaving adequate room for cars to get past and act as if their "peleton" has every right to take up half the road. Utter inconsiderate w#nkers the lot of them.

As a cyclist myself, this past few years I've noted a real shift in the attitudes of most car drivers as our roads become ever more crowded with bikes, lorries, cars, horses and farm traffic all competing for space here, much as everywhere else. Car drivers are more intolerant generally speaking I think of large groups of cyclists and more tolerant of lone or small groups out for a cycle or commuting. I took the decision to sell my road bike a year ago and just ride trails now because 1) it's gotten too dangerous on the roads and 2) I don't want to be lumped in with the ****s in lycra that ride in large groups.

They are the most intolerant of all road users imho. I cut in amongst a very large group of them, perfectly safely a week or so back and my dash cam footage snapped what happened after I did that. There was a small, and most likely unintentional gap between two large groups with the rear group obviously catching up to the back of the front one. I nipped past the rear group safely and tucked into a clear gap before a corner only to be met with loads of verbal abuse by the lycra mob. In no way had I put any of them in danger. I had my family in the car and the language coming from that group was foul. They are just scum on wheels and I'm afraid in my book anyway, deserve all the attitude and condemnation they get by car drivers. The police will do nothing even with dashcam footage. I know, as I submitted it and there was no interest in what was clearly dangerous, aggressive and careless riding with plenty of abuse towards us.
 
Last edited:
Not quite - if a cyclist on a special 'ring' or cycleway crosses the path of a motorist on the otherwise uncontrolled EXIT of the roundabout the motorist must give way. Given what you say (the rest I believe to be correct) moving cyclists who wish to circulate past an exit, down a dual purpose footway to a ped. crossing/Toucan crossing, might save the better part of £2.5M. A family member is down there - I will ask what its like - he's also a transport engineer.


That cant be correct. You seem to be saying that if a cyclist on a normal roundabout without a dedicated lane is about to cross the exit that a car driver wishes to use, then the driver should just cut the cyclist off. That's no different from two vehicles in two lanes on a roundabout and the one on the inner lane cutting across the outer lane in front of the other vehicle to get off the roundabout. This is just a road marking scheme to make it more obvious and try to slow down the traffic. If you think about it logically there is no actual difference in the priority of this system.
 
I cycle and wear Lycra when on my road bike, and baggier clothing on the winter on canal paths on my mountain bike . I don’t ride in a pack usually on my own. I don’t ride for a hobby I ride because my physiotherapist advised me to for my knee problem ( too much carpet fitting over the last 30 years) I don’t go through red lights or ride on the pavement.
I do get cars and lorries pass me through narrow gaps between bollards less than 1m from my arm and routinely get cars pulling out in front of me from parking bays and reversing off drives.
Get the same response as when I rode motorcycles ‘ Sorry mate did not see you’
i also drive a car, van and 4x4.

so unfortunately I meet a lot more inconsiderate and dangerous and law breaking vehicle drivers than cyclists .
had one last weekend dad with son in car less than a foot from me as he over took , I caught up with him at traffic lights.
I asked his son if he road a bike and he said yes I then asked his father if he would be happy with me skimming pas his son a 30mph giving him a foot of room ?
he went very red and could not apologise enough, hopefully he will drive more thoughtfully in the future 🚴‍♂️
 
That cant be correct. You seem to be saying that if a cyclist on a normal roundabout without a dedicated lane is about to cross the exit that a car driver wishes to use, then the driver should just cut the cyclist off. That's no different from two vehicles in two lanes on a roundabout and the one on the inner lane cutting across the outer lane in front of the other vehicle to get off the roundabout. This is just a road marking scheme to make it more obvious and try to slow down the traffic. If you think about it logically there is no actual difference in the priority of this system.
Remember this is intended to be about safety - so someone alongside is not as visible as crossing at 90 degrees from a clear dedicated lane, entry is usually safer but its the exit which isn't. It isn't, because cyclists either try and act like cars (very slowly) or they are virtually invisible when alongside vehicles where the driver is concentrating on forward visibility. Hence my suggestion of separating the turn off manoevre.
 
Remember this is intended to be about safety - so someone alongside is not as visible as crossing at 90 degrees from a clear dedicated lane, entry is usually safer but its the exit which isn't. It isn't, because cyclists either try and act like cars (very slowly) or they are virtually invisible when alongside vehicles where the driver is concentrating on forward visibility. Hence my suggestion of separating the turn off manoevre.

Yes it is about safety. But the intention of this system is to try and make the driver more aware and to slow down the traffic at the roundabout making it safer for pedestrians and cyclists. As someone pointed out, think if it was your child on a bike going around that roundabout.
I live in DK and this is the norm here and it seems to work. We have a lot more cyclists including a percentage of idiots that dont follow the rules and put themselves in danger, but drivers know to watch out for bikes as they do in places like Holland. You cant make an excuse out of a driver not paying proper attention to other road users, that's just unacceptable. The proposed solution with the lane separated by approx a cars length would seem to me to give ample visibility if drivers are paying attention.

What I don't understand is the comments from pedestrians and cyclists saying they find it confusing in the first article. I really cant see where the problem is. Maybe it's just the usual dinosaur mentality.
 
Back
Top