I FOUGHT THE LAW

With changes to the Highway Code sending mixed messages about riding two abreast, Vern Pitt sets out to ascertain if we need to modify our riding to stay safe

- 

Look, this was my idea,” I tell Sam. “And if that means I get ground to a pulp under a 10 ton lorry, like I very nearly just did, then so be it. I’m sure the readers of Cycling Weekly wouldn’t want it any other way.”

It was meant as reassurance to Sam, CW’s video manager, that I would be spending most of our ride out in the centre of the lane while he would be closeted in the gutter. It was the least I could do. After all, it was I who had roped him into an experiment of somewhat dubious scientific merit on how the changes to rule 66 in the Highway Code had worked out in the real world.

It had been two weeks since the new rules on riding two abreast had come into force and they were a mixed bag. The wording changed on 29 January to say in part, “You can ride two abreast and it can be safer to do so, particularly in larger groups…” But it then went on to suggest that as part of cyclists’ efforts to let others by they might want to consider stopping. Anyone who’s ever ridden in a group immediately spotted how impractical that would be. Clubs, this magazine and British Cycling were all scathing of the change inserted without consultation at the last minute.

But how would it work in practice; would you really need to stop as often as seemed likely? Would it really antagonise drivers if you didn’t? Had anyone other than committed cyclists even noticed the code had changed?

As a way of measuring this Sam and I had set off on a one-hour loop riding two abreast to see how much of a problem we caused. I’d hit my lap button on my computer every time you could conceivably imagine we might need to pull over. My bar for when that was was that of the angry motorist i.e. any time we caused a driver to come off the gas.