In this section CQFD (“ What Had to Be Demonstrated »), we answer your questions, even your prejudices concerning the practice of cycling or triathlon. Simple questions, but answers not necessarily so obvious for novices or for those who are foreign to our environment.
It's summer, the weather is nice and many cyclists are taking advantage of the beautiful days to indulge in their favorite activity on their usual playground, that is to say the route. A route that they must bytagto be with other users, which is not without sometimes posing some problems of cohabitation. But why in this case do they ride two (or more) abreast on the route ?
By Guillaume Judas – Photos: PhotoMIX Ltd. from Pexels, flickr.com, pxhere.com / DR
Between 2014 and 2018, the number of cyclists killed each year on the route in France went from 142 to 191In February 2019, the early good weather was even pointed out by Road Safety to explain a 22% increase in the mortality rate of cyclists compared to the months of February over the last ten years.
An explanation that is far-fetched to say the least, when we know that the countries where there are the fewest deaths on bicycles are those where there are the most cyclists, particularly for urban travel. And also a way of exonerating certain motorists, who are directly responsible for fatal accidents involving cyclists, from responsibility. Indeed, and we forget this too often, If we can rightly criticize incivility and violations of the Code of route of some cyclists, we have never yet seen a bicycle kill a motorist behind its bodywork. An obvious fact that should be enough to calm irascible drivers, encourage them to be more careful when approaching cyclists and, at the very least, to avoid altercations.
Among the criticisms made to the fans of two-wheeled pedal bikes, there is that of riding two cyclists (or even more) abreast on the road, which would have the effect of taking up too much space and slowing down motorists. The latter are mostly content to silently grumble in their cabin, when others then find it legitimate to squeeze these same cyclists very closely to make them understand who are the masters of the route.
To discuss
Cycling, like many sports activities, brings its users closer together and has undeniable social virtues. Thus, there are practitioners who ride alone because they don't really have a choice, and those who enjoy riding in groups for exampletagIt’s a moment of sport and conviviality with friends. Cycling, under the pretext that it is practiced on the route, would it be the only activity where it is forbidden to communicate with your companions? Two cyclists riding side by side chat most of the time, as do two people walking together on a sidewalk, traveling a hiking trail, or like two people sitting in a car.
For bytagis the effort
Cycling as a sport is difficult because you have to constantly fight against external elements. And especially the wind, which is the first resistance to progress. Cyclists together (from two) motivate each other and take turns. That is to say, theytagent the effort at the head of the group to face the wind and thus shelter their companions from route in their wake. As a result, Seen from behind, a line of cyclists is never completely straight, especially when the leading cyclist moves aside to let the next cyclist pass and slides to the back of the group.
To take up less space on the route
It's paradoxical, but two cyclists abreast take up less space on the route that two cyclists in single file, at least if the motorist intends to respect the Highway Code route. According to this Code, "When two vehicles are following each other, the driver of the second must maintain a sufficient safety distance, corresponding to the distance travelled by the vehicle for a period of at least two seconds. » (R412-12, 4th class fine). This article applies to both motorists and cyclists. Those who ride in a group in single file are therefore in violation. And if they respect the two-second gap one behind the other, there is in any case insufficient space for a car initiating an overtaking to insert itself.
But this same Code of the route also and above all stipulates that « to overtake, a driver must not approach a cyclist laterally within one meter in built-up areas and one and a half meters outside built-up areas" (article R414-4, 4th class fine, €135, and 3 points removed from driving license). It is this rule that is most often ignored or misinterpreted by motorists, some of whom are completely unaware of the danger they represent by brushing against one or more cyclists.. These can in fact be deflected from their trajectory by a hole on the route, a gust of wind or a lack of practice. The consequences of overtaking too close (and therefore dangerous) can be dramatic in this case.
Since July 1, 2015, it is now possible for a motorist to cross a white line to overtake a cyclist, when visibility is sufficient. And therefore to respect this safety distance. This overtaking maneuver is always faster and less dangerous in the case of a compact group of cyclists than if they are all in a line.
To take up more space on the route
Conversely, in built-up areas, especially where 30 km/h speed limits are becoming more and more common, the question of overtaking should not even arise, especially in the case of sporty cyclists who travel at a speed very close to the authorised limit.
The Code of the route even specifies that "on roads where the maximum authorized speed does not exceed 50 km/h, a cycle driver may move away from vehicles parked on the right-hand side of the roadway, by a distance necessary for his safety » (Article R412-9). A cyclist takes a width of a good fifty centimeters, to which we add 80 cm at one meter from the edge of the route and the regulatory meter for overtaking, and We understand that whatever happens, most of the time, and given the narrowness of the streets and the road layout, it is not possible to overtake a cyclist in town, even alone.
Two cyclists riding side by side in a built-up area thus take up the necessary space on the road. route, and discourage dangerous overtaking.
Because they have the right to do so.
Finally, contrary to popular belief, the Code of the route stipulates that cyclists are allowed to ride two abreast (but no more). According to article R431–7:"Drivers of two-wheeled cycles must never ride more than two abreast on the road. They must move into single file as soon as night falls and in all cases where traffic conditions require it, particularly when a vehicle wishing to overtake them announces its approach." However, let us note the imprecision of the last sentence, sufficiently vague that it is subject to interpretation depending on whether you are a cyclist or a driver. It nevertheless reminds us that when there is a will, on both sides, bytager the route, things are going pretty well and all it takes is a quick, non-aggressive honk (i.e. not insistently and not too close to the cyclists) for them to move over to leave more room for the driver.
=> SEE AS WELL : Our other articles in the CQFD section
Good evening Charlot,
Are you telling us that you're pulling over to let a car that wants to overtake you pass?
If so, that's downright submission!!!
I would rather say that it is common sense. This is how I personally see thetagand de la routeIf I see that I might obstruct a vehicle, I prefer to park. And motorists often thank me.
Hello, editors? Have you been supporting this kind of murderous remarks without reacting for 7 days?
This is unacceptable, this lout should be reported for incitement to murder.
You are able to trace it by IP address…
You can report it yourself if you consider it useful.
Good evening Luke,
We can clearly see in this thread of comments that the safety of cyclists is not a given. Many believe that we have nothing to do on the routeI really don't know what should be done to make us more respected!!
Use reserved lanes, tracks, towpaths as much as possible, or at worst, ride on rollers when the place of residence does not allow you to do otherwise. routeThey were designed for cars and trucks, not for bicycles, which is a hobby, I remind you!
La route is for cars, motorbikes and trucks... the others are people who annoy me when they ride in a group in front of me, when I read in the newspaper that there was an accident because of them it annoys me again unless they are the victim who caused the accident "for example the lady who took 8 head-on because the Sunday bike pack arrived like a bomb on the left... then I was happy!!!
La route is for everyone, if we follow the code of the route to the letter.
This intolerance is incredible!!!
I totally agree with Henri and Ro, we cyclists are annoying, we don't pay taxes to have routes, we deliberately take our bikes instead of our cars to annoy motorists. Yes, yes! We also have cars, but we remain annoying because we tend to respect cyclists when we use them… And worse, we understand that it is sometimes complicated to ride a bike on deformed and badly made roads. Besides, can we call a roadway, a route ? Shouldn't we call this a path or a way? I think that's the root of the problem and let's ask the philosophers of our time to think about it... In short, we apologize for not moving forward and we understand that a 150 horsepower, 1,5 ton vehicle, which can travel at 180 km/h, accelerate from 0 to 100 in a few seconds (air conditioning on) has PRIORITY (a rule known since ancient Greece) and that it should not wait even 1 second, especially if it is already speeding in a built-up area (it's well known, everyone respects speed limits) or worse, that it should move to the opposite lane (even less if there is no one in front), really sorry! Next time, even to go 1 km, we'll all take our cars, we don't care about the planet! (The ecologists are annoying too). 2 months ago, I helped a cyclist who was hit by a car, bathed in his blood, the driver kneeling, her head in her hands, sobbing and asking for forgiveness. I still regret not having apologized to her on behalf of the cyclist who had no business being on his route and who had probably thrown herself under her car. She really should have run away so as not to waste even more time. I hope that you will apologize, too, when your child or partner is run over by a car, he/she is really the annoying one in this story! Finally, our apologies for the Badinter law, this anti-death penalty leftist who passed a law that stipulates that even if at fault a cyclist is considered a victim when hit by a car (except in 3 cases including suicide...) because apparently 100% of deaths are cyclists in the event of an accident, sorry also to die every time! In short, let's stigmatize, show bad faith, talk, dissect the texts of laws that the majority of users do not know, stick to our positions, do not try to ride a bike to understand the challenges and risks of the practice, do not change anything and above all count the ever-increasing number of (annoying) deaths! The next generation will have to live with cycling on a large scale, hopefully they won't have to apologize....
Bonsoir.
You're deliberately omitting this little detail, which isn't very honest, but in truth I ask you, are cyclists really honest when they write texts like yours and lie by omission?
– cyclists may ride two abreast on the road. They must form a single file as soon as night falls and in all cases where traffic conditions require it, particularly when a vehicle wishing to overtake them announces its approach (R431-7, 2nd class
It's all in how you announce your approach. A gentle warning a hundred meters away is better than an aggressive honk five meters from the cyclists' rear wheel.
This bias is surprising! And how do you think a motorist should announce his approach?
Yes, so what?
Cyclists can ride two abreast, and when a motorist (kindly) announces their approach, they pull up behind each other. However, it would be nice to give them time to park, wouldn't it?
You piss off cyclists by always showing off. We build you bike lanes, and you don't use them. And then they'll complain that they're getting shaved. You need to stop walking around in tight lycra on the route. The route It's not for bikes. You have the trails or the woods to pedal on!!!!
Excuse us for existing and go get off your couch instead. route is for everyone. Cyclists pay their taxes like everyone else. Cycling in the woods is not the same sport!!!
Hello,
It is important to understand the definition of a “Carriageway”.
A roadway is not synonymous with route.
I quote:
– cyclists may ride two abreast on the road. They must form a single file as soon as night falls and in all cases where traffic conditions require it, particularly when a vehicle wishing to overtake them announces its approach (R431-7, 2nd class
– to overtake, the driver must not approach a cyclist laterally within one meter in built-up areas and one and a half meters outside built-up areas (R414-4, 4th class). Since 2015, the driver can straddle the solid lines to overtake a cyclist (R412-19).
It is precisely because of this very important rule that it is important not to ride two abreast on a route.
It must be understood that normally the routeThey are designed to put a car and a bicycle side by side without having to cross a line.
and as this law also explains, for overtaking in the case of a white line, motorists are authorized to straddle it.
If 2 cyclists were to ride 2 abreast, this would represent an additional danger and would make it impossible to do so in the event of danger.
You should realize the danger before explaining false things.
Kind regards.
If you think a "roadway" is not a route ? What is this ?
A route Isn't it a "roadway"?
In fact, we are not explaining anything wrong. The Code clearly states that two cyclists can ride two abreast, under certain conditions.
Convinced that a roadway was a kind of path that one could take on the side of a road route, forced to note that it was indeed me who was wrong and ask you to excuse this. I have always been convinced that the code of the route stipulated that cyclists were prohibited from riding two abreast to give motorists the only possibility of avoiding danger by overtaking them. Because in the event of danger it is impossible to brake to avoid hitting a cyclist even at 2 km/h, the only way to do so is to overtake them. Perhaps the highway code route has evolved since then but I am surprised. Nevertheless you started your article by announcing that the route is a playground, which I find to be very unconscious and imprudent. In addition, you are directing it well by announcing a question of space, but this is not at all the reason which leads to this discord between motorists and cyclists. The problem is just that a route is not at all suitable for slow vehicles, whether motorized or not, with 2 or more wheels. It is the difference in speed between a motorized vehicle, whether car, truck or motorcycle (which do not take up more space than a bicycle) and a slow vehicle that poses major danger problems on the routes. And normally the code of the route is also there to ensure that dangers are avoided. Kind regards.
Another remark, you say; "we have never yet seen a bicycle kill a motorist behind its bodywork" if this is a joke, it is very badly turned. A person whether on foot, in a car or on a bicycle can quite easily be held responsible for an accident without being behind a "bodywork"
and by checking for myself, we will put everyone in agreement, the article of law stipulates:
Item R431-7
Version in force since June 01, 2001
Drivers of two-wheeled cycles without a trailer or sidecar must never ride more than two abreast on the road.
They must line up in single file as soon as night falls and in all cases where the conditions
traffic requires it, especially when a vehicle wanting to overtake them announces its approach.
Any driver who contravenes the provisions of this article shall be punished by the fine provided for second class contraventions.
This simply means that cyclists can ride side by side only in pairs, but when a vehicle approaches to overtake them, they must move over to get in line.
End of the discussion.
You interpret everything in your favortagand cyclists you are annoying on the route With 2 fronts, you simply believe that you are allowed to do anything, whether it is to run a red light, stop, or give way. In short, you invent your own rules.
Is it legal for cyclists to ride two abreast, yes or no?
Hello,
I ride a bike, I also ride a motorbike, and like everyone else I use a car.
I use a daily route very narrow which does not allow overtaking and makes crossings difficult and at certain times impossible without one of the two stopping. I frequently get angry with cyclists who think they can ride two abreast no matter what. I have even seen some who slow down and turn around to see my reaction. I managed to overtake them and stopped to tell them that they did not have to do that. The only response was: "we have the right"
Following this kind of reflection, I printed out the article about riding two abreast and gave it to them. This route does not allow you to overtake a cyclist with 1m50 if he is not well to the right, so imagine two abreast.
There is a real lack of training and Woeckler is not going to fix things.
CDT
Blah blah blah... Henri isn't happy because one day two cyclists made him lose 30 seconds of his precious time. He would probably have preferred to run them over, to get to his mother-in-law's house faster!
Poor France...
Why so much aggression?
Did your wife cheat on you with a cyclist?
Nonsense! The road belongs to everyone, and we're talking about route paved. And whether you like it or not, cyclists are not obliged to use cycle paths when they are not mandatory.
There are a lot of route, especially in the countryside, where two cars have difficulty passing each other without slowing down. So to claim that they were designed so that they don't have to overtake a cyclist without crossing a line is totally stupid.
For your information, in Spain, it is now mandatory for a motorist to CHANGE LANE when passing a cyclist. And if he can't completely change lanes, he waits behind. That way, it's settled.
Since when has this rule existed in Spain? I didn't know.
Hello,
In Spain, the obligation for motorists to change lanes completely to overtake a cyclist on routeThe multi-lane, same-direction traffic rule came into effect on March 21, 2022. This rule is part of the changes made by the Dirección General de Tráfico (DGT) to the Reglamento General de Circulación as part of a reform aimed at improving cyclist safety.
Hmmm, that's true, but if we refer to the code of the route, it is also important to mention all relevant articles… in particular:
Article R431-7Version in force since June 01, 2001
Drivers of two-wheeled cycles without a trailer or sidecar must never ride more than two abreast on the road.
They must line up in single file as soon as night falls and in all cases where traffic conditions require it, particularly when a vehicle wishing to overtake them announces its approach.
Any driver who contravenes the provisions of this article shall be punished by the fine provided for second class contraventions.
Hello,
This article of the Code of route is specified at the end of the article. It's all in the way you announce your approach. A little warning a hundred meters away is better than an aggressive horn blast 5 meters from the cyclists' rear wheel.
You know, most of the time, cyclists pull over when they hear a car, so as not to cause unnecessary inconvenience. But sometimes, you have to give them a few seconds to get behind each other, and not be aggressive when you want to overtake.
Not to mention the many city streets where, despite the best will in the world, it is IMPOSSIBLE for a car to overtake a cyclist while leaving them the regulatory margin of 1 m.
Cyclists have no place on the routeThey have tracks that were created especially for them. And if they don't like it, they have velodromes that cost us an arm and a leg, or they can also go riding in the woods. ROUTE THIS IS FOR CARS. Don't be surprised if you have problems later.
Honestly, when I ride on a route narrow and a car pulls up behind me and shows a desire to overtake me, I prefer to pull over to the side of the road to let it pass. It's common sense. So I can't even imagine riding two abreast.
I think we need to campaign so that cyclists cannot ride on the road at all. route. THEY HAVE NOTHING TO DO ABOUT IT. They shouldn't be surprised if they have problems later.
I sincerely hope that one day you will come across a cyclist who reminds you who belongs and who doesn't belong on the road. routeIt's easy to be smart behind your computer, or safe in your car.
In some regions, cohabitation between cyclists and motorists is a real problem. One wonders what the public authorities are waiting for to regulate all this. There are already enough tragedies on the route.
Yes, we must regulate and ban cyclists on the route. They often have nothing to do there. There are enough cycle paths to cycle for health. And for those who want to do sport, they only have to do the Tour de France, where the routeare closed to traffic.
In some regions, cohabitation between cyclists and motorists is a real problem. One wonders what the public authorities are waiting for to regulate all this. There are already enough tragedies on the route.