• li10@feddit.uk
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      39
      arrow-down
      15
      ·
      1 year ago

      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…

      • Mr_Blott@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        19
        arrow-down
        9
        ·
        1 year ago

        niche scenario

        Never been to a country where road cycling is massive then? Try living in anyplace that has Alps in it lol

        • li10@feddit.uk
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          27
          arrow-down
          5
          ·
          1 year ago

          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 🤔

      • SonnyVabitch@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        11
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        1 year ago

        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.

        • MeanEYE@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          3
          ·
          1 year ago

          That’s not safely overtaking. That’s squeezing through and if there’s a chance vehicle will get hit he will push the cyclists out.

        • li10@feddit.uk
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          4
          arrow-down
          22
          ·
          1 year ago

          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.

          • SonnyVabitch@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            17
            arrow-down
            5
            ·
            1 year ago

            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.

          • biddy@feddit.nl
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            5
            ·
            1 year ago

            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.

      • MeanEYE@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        6
        ·
        1 year ago

        In my experience this is like 80% of overtaking situations when cycling. Far from niche.

    • MeanEYE@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      16
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      1 year ago

      Great image, but you see people really don’t want to use their steering wheels. And if possible they’d like pedestrian crossings removed as well. In ideal world there would be a race track from their home to exactly where they need to go and everyone else in traffic is a dick. Including other car drivers. Learning traffic laws and rules is too much of an effort anyway.

      • theplanlessman@feddit.uk
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        4
        ·
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        The image appears to be from the UK. Here in the UK cyclists are supposed to stay at least 0.5m from the kerb, with a recommendation for more distance if possible (rule 72 of the Highway Code). Cars are supposed to keep at least 1.5m away from cyclists when overtaking (rule 163). Taking an average cyclist width of 60cm (some handlebars go much wider than that, as might pannier bags, but let’s use that as an average), that means a single cyclist should have control of ~2.6m of the lane at least.

        Let’s say that the average lane on urban roads in the UK are around 3m wide (an estimate based on a quick google, not a rule), this means a legal overtake of a cyclist should have the car leaving no more than 40cm of the car in the lane. It’s not a big jump from that to moving entirely into the other lane.

        Admittedly almost no one in the UK actually follows these rules, but this is how it’s supposed to be. Given that, adding another cyclist riding abreast shouldn’t affect overtaking time significantly, whereas the two cyclists riding in line will double the amount of time in the oncoming lane.

    • systonjon@feddit.uk
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      arrow-down
      13
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      This image is odd. The whole point it’s trying to make is that it’s quicker to overtake cyclists who are two abreast as opposed to in a line.

      In points 3 and 4 it suggests that because the driver can go completely into the other lane, they should, 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 as closely as is safe. Maybe not a huge difference in time but it’s not like this overtake is going to take a very long time in total.

      If it wanted to suggest that it’s only ever safe to overtake a cyclist by driving entirely into the other lane then the diagrams aren’t necessary. It could just say:

      1. More cyclists fit onto a given stretch of road if they’re side by side.

      2. You have to drive into the other lane to overtake anyway.

      3. Therefore it’s always quicker to overtake cyclists who are side by side.

      The other thing it doesn’t take into account is that to overtake a cyclist you’d typically be accelerating, so the 2nd cyclist in a row would be passed more quickly than the 1st.

      • biddy@feddit.nl
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        11
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        1 year ago

        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.

      • theplanlessman@feddit.uk
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        4
        ·
        1 year ago

        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”