Good etiquette cycling with another or in a group

Kaisr Sose

Perhaps I am getting old and cranky but last week while driving in the evening I came upon a group of 5 cyclists.

All or most of them had head lamps, and rear lights. Not all of them had a front light on their bikes. Some of the headlamps were very strong, but that's another matter.

There is a cycle lane along the road but it is poorly lit and classified as semi rural. As I caught up with them (driving), four of them were cycling 2x2 within the cycle lane
No problem there. However, the 5th was ridimg off the wheels, away from the group, and also out in the traffic lane, making the group width almost the equivalent of 3 abreast.

I found I could not safely pass them without crossing a continuous white line (which I did not) and had to wait to pass. As I passed, slowly, somwhat amazwd at what I had seen, I rolled down the window, said it was dangerous and tantamount to having a death wish to ride like that at night.

Needless to say, I got a bit of verbals back plus the classic I should not pass within 1.5m of the cyclists. No mention or thought given to them being considerate of other road users or for that matter riding in a manner that applicable to the road/ traffic /environmental / light conditions.

I have rode 10,000' s of thousands of miles in my life and would never have considered this type of night riding considerate or safe. Lights or no lights you just don't know what's coming behind or towards you. Am I being too picky?

Hi Ho

Rolling down a window while passing to give a lecture from a car ... they probably thought you were one of the normal, angry, anti-cycling nutters.

crosstownk

Kaisr Sose wrote: »

the 5th was ridimg off the wheels, away from the group, and also out in the traffic lane, making the group width almost the equivalent of 3 abreast.

Was he overtaking the other 2 abreast cyclists? Or was he alongside having a natter?

AmberGold

Awful behaviour, did you report them to the local Garda?

Lusk_Doyle

Is April 1st early this year?

crosstownk

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hamKl-su8PE

Kaisr Sose

Hi Ho wrote: »

Rolling down a window while passing to give a lecture from a car ... they probably thought you were one of the normal, angry, anti-cycling nutters.

Perhaps. Its not something I have ever did before, but I never encountered such stupidy either.

Kaisr Sose

crosstownk wrote: »

Was he overtaking the other 2 abreast cyclists? Or was he alongside having a natter?

None of the above. Behind the outside rear cyclist, but to their right, and off the back a meter or so. Not ideal shelter from any wind!

Kaisr Sose

Lusk_Doyle wrote: »

Is April 1st early this year?

Very cryptic. Care to expand your thinking ? It was real...Could not make it up...

Lusk_Doyle

So 5 cyclists. 2 sets of 2 abreast and 1 1 abreast behind them and all with lights.

I fail to see the problem. Enlighten us. No pun intended.

Kaisr Sose

Lusk_Doyle wrote: »

So 5 cyclists. 2 sets of 2 abreast and 1 1 abreast behind them and all with lights.

I fail to see the problem. Enlighten us. No pun intended.

I detect a somewhat blinkered view here. Please read my post. If you find no problem with that (in daylight or particularly at night) I will no doubt see your name added to the long list of Darwin Award winners who think doing stupid things is cool.

Lusk_Doyle

Kaisr Sose wrote: »

I detect a somewhat blinkered view here. Please read my post. If you find no problem with that I will no doubt see your name added to the long list of Darwin Award winners who think doing stupid things is cool.

Why is cycling at night with bright lights stupid? Who said anything about it being cool?

Kaisr Sose

Lusk_Doyle wrote: »

Why is cycling at night with bright lights stupid? Who said anything about it being cool?

No problem with lights, but riding safely and with consideration of other road users is a given in all light conflditions. The 5th guy was not riding behind the two in front (riding perfectly OK in the cycle lane) He was off to the right, out in the road.

Lights or not, please explain what you think is right here? What was wrong with following behind another cyclist and staying out off the wind. Anyone who cycles regularly knows that's the best place to ride.

Muckers

There was only one cyclist cycling on the road so. presumably he was in to the left and not out on the central white line. I just like the others cant see a problem with that. Also it is not compulsory to use cycle lanes when provided. Some of them are more dangerous than the road itself.

Kaisr Sose

Muckers wrote: »

There was only one cyclist cycling on the road so. presumably he was in to the left and not out on the central white line. I just like the others cant see a problem with that. Also it is not compulsory to use cycle lanes when provided. Some of them are more dangerous than the road itself.

To clarify, this is not a matter about cycle lanes. I know they are not compulsary and there are many I would not use either. This was not one of them and is used by all the many cyclists that pass by (its a popular route)

I can see no reason why the 5th guy would not follow wheels. If he is with the group, he rides in the group not off the back and out in the wind. I had no issue with the 4 other guys, riding 2 abreast. That's regular here. Please also remember it was 8.30pm not broad daylight. Extra caution should be the norm..no?

Muckers

Caution yes, but as long as he is well lit, I honestly cant see a problem here. You seem to be making a point that he was not riding on the wheel of one of the group ahead of him, but thats not a safety issue is it? That's his choice for whatever reason. Perhaps he was a solo cyclist and just happened to be behind the group. Anyway I think it's irrelevant. Point is he did nothing wrong

Kaisr Sose

Muckers wrote: »

Caution yes, but as long as he is well lit, I honestly cant see a problem here. You seem to be making a point that he was not riding on the wheel of one of the group ahead of him, but thats not a safety issue is it? That's his choice for whatever reason. Perhaps he was a solo cyclist and just happened to be behind the group. Anyway I think it's irrelevant. Point is he did nothing wrong

I am just asking the q. Seems many think its OK or acceptable to impede traffic when it could be avoided. I think not especially on dark roads. His mates or whatever they were clearly realise the benefit of keeping in as much as possible. Being seen is only part of being safe, safe behaviour is just as much so. Otherwise, you tempt fate and needlessly so.
But as I said, maybe I am getting old and cranky :-)...by the way, these were not 20 somethings, would say some were in 40's just like me.

m5ex9oqjawdg2i

Really don't see a problem here. Seems like standard road rage to me. I would liken it to the halfwit who was beeping and shouting "GTFO of my way" while I making my way through a roundabout and he wanted to overtake me... somehow...

Or the punishment pass I received for avoiding nasty potholes on my way home from work. Both incidents happened today. Both drivers making assumptions and then proceeding to pass judgement on my.

You don't know why the 5th cyclist was out, and it doesn't matter either way. You have no authority and no right to pass judgement and lecture other road users.

OldBean

Kaisr Sose wrote: »

I am just asking the q. Seems many think its OK or acceptable to impede traffic when it could be avoided.

They weren't impeding traffic, they were traffic.

shergar22

Rohan Repulsive Ginger wrote: »

Really don't see a problem here. Seems like standard road rage to me. I would liken it to the halfwit who was beeping and shouting "GTFO of my way" while I making my way through a roundabout and he wanted to overtake me... somehow...

Or the punishment pass I received for avoiding nasty potholes on my way home from work. Both incidents happened today. Both drivers making assumptions and then proceeding to pass judgement on my.

You don't know why the 5th cyclist was out, and it doesn't matter either way. You have no authority and no right to pass judgement and lecture other road users.

Why not? If a motorist doesn't drive according to your code of ethics you're quick to come on here and rant about it. Slow down with the Holy Joe attitude.

Reasonable query by OP who sounds like they thought about what they were going to post before they did it. Unlike the majority of the defensive automatic knee-jerk responses to OP's post.

Kaisr Sose

Rohan Repulsive Ginger wrote: »

Really don't see a problem here. Seems like standard road rage to me. I would liken it to the halfwit who was beeping and shouting "GTFO of my way" while I making my way through a roundabout and he wanted to overtake me... somehow...

Or the punishment pass I received for avoiding nasty potholes on my way home from work. Both incidents happened today. Both drivers making assumptions and then proceeding to pass judgement on my.

You don't know why the 5th cyclist was out, and it doesn't matter either way. You have no authority and no right to pass judgement and lecture other road users.

Thanks for the enlightened input. My sympathies for your encounters today, but don't confuse your experience with cyclists occasionally being wrong. What I seen was dangerous and stupid. I am sure if you drive you would sound your horn if somebody did something stupid or at least think it was bad driving. Sometimes the person doing it does not realise they are causing a problem - and sometimes they do it knowingly.

(By the way I did not do that, nor was it road rage, so please don't speculate that it was or that I am judging others.)

Whether you agree or not, cyclists are sometimes their own worst enemies and acting like you own a poorly lit road is not exactly a great idea at the best of times.

Seeing as you are so knowledgeable of cyclimg rights and wrongs, please tell me, whats right with cycling way out in the roadway on a dark road at night time for no reason? I for one did not see any logical reason for it.

In case you judge me further, I am a cyclist, and regularly cycle along that road in the dark.

Kaisr Sose

shergar22 wrote: »

Why not? If a motorist doesn't drive according to your code of ethics you're quick to come on here and rant about it. Slow down with the Holy Joe attitude.

Reasonable query by OP who sounds like they thought about what they were going to post before they did it. Unlike the majority of the defensive automatic knee-jerk responses to OP's post.

Thanks. I did think a lot about what I posted!

CramCycle

Hi Ho wrote: »

Rolling down a window while passing to give a lecture from a car ...

In terms of stupid behaviour, this seems to be far more wreckless

Kaisr Sose wrote: »

Seeing as you are so knowledgeable of cyclimg rights and wrongs, please tell me, whats right with cycling way out in the roadway on a dark road at night time for no reason? I for one did not see any logical reason for it.

In case you judge me further, I am a cyclist, and regularly cycle along that road in the dark.

At night time, with good lights, sounds like the cyclists was cycling in the safest position, certainly where I would chose without any more info, do you have a google map link?

dubrov

CramCycle wrote:

At night time, with good lights, sounds like the cyclists was cycling in the safest position, certainly where I would chose without any more info, do you have a google map link?

I'm amazed at how defensive the responses have been.

Whatever about the cyclist being entitled to do what he did, there is no evidence to suggest that the cyclist was cycling in the safest position.

desertcircus

Rolling down a window and attempting to lecture other road users while piloting a ton and a half of metal down a road that's not even safe to overtake a car on is utterly insane.

laraghrider

shergar22 wrote: »

Why not? If a motorist doesn't drive according to your code of ethics you're quick to come on here and rant about it. Slow down with the Holy Joe attitude.

Reasonable query by OP who sounds like they thought about what they were going to post before they did it. Unlike the majority of the defensive automatic knee-jerk responses to OP's post.

I think the issue is being missed here. If a motorist doesn't drive in accordance with the rules of the road then anyone, be it cyclist, pedestrian or other driver has ever right to feel annoyed at them. However the situation here is that a cyclist who was not in any way in contradiction to the rules of the road was just cycling but the motorist didn't like it. Big difference in the two situations.

To the OP. It's hard to say exactly without knowing the route, the conditions etc... so I honestly don't know how dangerous it was. That said. Ignoring the other 4 riders as the 5th may not have been with them and lets just focus on him. He was riding well lit, to the left of a standard road lane. Irrespective of anything else in the locality he did nothing wrong and was perfectly entitled to be there. The most dangerous action here is pulling up beside a road user in poor light conditions, rolling down a window and giving him "advice". Assuming you were looking at him while doing that then you weren't paying attention to the road. Studies show people steer the car in the direction they look so while looking left to talk to the rider you would have been gradually steering your car to the left and only serving to make a bad situation a hell of a lot worse.

dubrov wrote: »

Whatever about the cyclist being entitled to do what he did, there is no evidence to suggest that the cyclist was cycling in the safest position.

Absolutely, which is why a few of us have been trying to get more details on the situation and maybe even a street view of the particular section of road. He may well have been cycling like an ass but it's the OP's original post that suggests he wasn't, it suggest he simply wasn't where the OP wanted him to be. Most motorists that post something similar that have a genuine grievance give details on where the cyclist was on the road, the section of road, the clothes or lack of they were wearing etc... In this case all we have to go on is the OP and to be fair there is nothing to suggest the cyclist did anything wrong.

triggermortis

dubrov wrote: »

I'm amazed at how defensive the responses have been.

Whatever about the cyclist being entitled to do what he did, there is no evidence to suggest that the cyclist was cycling in the safest position.

I would guess that he (the 5th cyclist) was in a position that he felt safe in - otherwise he wouldn't be in it. It just happened that he was in the way of the OP, who felt it his duty to impart his displeasure on the cyclist (s) - not a safe manoeuvre itself as he is not concentrating on the road

Idleater

Kaisr Sose wrote: »

(By the way I did not do that, nor was it road rage, so please don't speculate that it was or that I am judging others.)

But you are allowed to speculate that the 5th cyclist was in the wrong position?

There was a thread or a series of posts in a thread earlier this week about drafting while commuting, let's suppose that the 5th was in their own unrelated group or perhaps a triathlete training pseudo drafting.

niceonetom

Kaisr Sose wrote: »

Am I being too picky?

WAAAAY too picky.

Frankly I don't know how you can make any journey by road with such high standards for others and an apparent hair-trigger for intervention.

DanDublin1982

If it was me I'd have been in behind the 2x2 group as I can't imagine a situation where other cyclists feel cycling in the cycle lane 2 abreast is perfectly safe but for some reason I don't.

I'm making an assumption here that we're talking about the lane/road being the one level and not a raised path as I might think differently in that scenario.

The thread title asks about etiquette and to me it would be good etiquette to stay in the cycle lane in the scenario outlined. Certainly doesn't warrant a talking to either mind (bad driving etiquette?), it just sounds to me like the entire situation from start to finish was unnecessary.

Chips Lovell

Any time I drive to work, I frequently roll down the window to deliver lectures to other road users I feel aren't employing good etiquette. It helps pass the time.

Lusk_Doyle

Jep Gambardella wrote: »

Any time I drive to work, I frequently roll down the window to deliver lectures to other road users I feel aren't employing good etiquette. It helps pass the time.

Maniac!

Said in a Jeremy Clarkson tone.

CramCycle

dubrov wrote: »

I'm amazed at how defensive the responses have been.

Whatever about the cyclist being entitled to do what he did, there is no evidence to suggest that the cyclist was cycling in the safest position.

I wasn't saying he was entitled, in my statement, I was suggesting that it sounded like the 5th person was in the safest position considering it was nighttime, they were well lit up, there were a group of cyclists on what seemed to me to be described as an off road cycle path (which can be treacherous enough at daytime when you can see the many dangers on them easier).

DanDublin1982 wrote: »

If it was me I'd have been in behind the 2x2 group as I can't imagine a situation where other cyclists feel cycling in the cycle lane 2 abreast is perfectly safe but for some reason I don't

Same here, there are few cycle paths designed for two abreast AFAIK

I'm making an assumption here that we're talking about the lane/road being the one level and not a raised path as I might think differently in that scenario.

I thought that it was seperated, possibly up on a path, it wasn't clear to me.

EDIT: Re reading the OP, I presume the semi rural comment means it was on the road. But by the description it sounds like the 5th rider wasn't in the group, so dead right not to stay to close. Maybe he didn't feel it was safe to pull in and give the OP the idea that it was safe to pass when he felt it wasn't. Maybe he had just caught up with them and did not want to annoy the OP by performing an overtake when the OP had already signalled his intention too. Maybe he was holding the primary position and the other group were irrelevant to his road position at the time. Like I said without clarity, its hard to say, but the one thing I can say is that it seems like a non issue that was made into one. I do know the OP said it wasn't safe to pass without crossing a continuous white line, this indicates that the road was probably not safe to pass on regardless as my simple understanding of road craft is that you have to cross the broken line to make a safe overtake of any other vehicle, regardless of size.

Either way, non issue, blown out of proportion, made more dangerous by making this group the width of two cars on a road with a continuous white line when that would indicate that the overtake was in progress, lucky a Garda didn't see you failing to complete the overtake once you had started TBH.

CramCycle

Jep Gambardella wrote: »

Any time I drive to work, I frequently roll down the window to deliver lectures to other road users I feel aren't employing good etiquette. It helps pass the time.

I rolled down my window this week, the other driver had stopped at lights, there was in traffic behind or in front of me.

I told the other driver that a part of her front bonnet was dragging along the ground, I could see it from behind.

As I drove away I suspected there was a carry on movie in there somewhere but alas my wit has failed me yet again.

07Lapierre

Kaisr Sose wrote: »

There is a cycle lane along the road but it is poorly lit and classified as semi rural. As I caught up with them (driving), four of them were cycling 2x2 within the cycle lane
No problem there. However, the 5th was ridimg off the wheels, away from the group, and also out in the traffic lane, making the group width almost the equivalent of 3 abreast.

I don't get this ... the cycle lane is a separate lane..so in effect you came across one cyclist who was cycling to the left of the lane? As others have said, I fail to see the problem?

mathie

Kaisr Sose wrote: »

However, the 5th was ridimg off the wheels, away from the group, and also out in the traffic lane, making the group width almost the equivalent of 3 abreast.

Pure gold.

Cantona's Collars

Kaisr Sose wrote: »

No problem there. However, the 5th was ridimg off the wheels, away from the group, and also out in the traffic lane, making the group width almost the equivalent of 3 abreast.

I found I could not safely pass them without crossing a continuous white line (which I did not) and had to wait to pass.

You do know that you can pass slow moving vehicles on a solid white line if it's needed.This topic was discussed last week on The Last Word.The cyclist would have been deemed slow moving traffic.

buffalo

This morning I met three lads cycling three abreast on the wrong side of the Clontarf cycle track, who refused to single out as we approached a head on collision. That's bad cycling etiquette.

What's described in the OP is quite possibly four people out for a spin, and another one gradually overtaking them. Who the hell knows?

yop

Seems like a nothing complaint, as Buffalo says did he know if the other cyclist was on their own and passing the group?
They had lights, can't win, no lights people give out, too much light people give out.
Driving along side with the window down shouting, ya I'm sure the guards would love a chat with you OP.
They were in a cycle lane, no issue there.
Continuous white line, plenty and plenty again about this, so again this isnt an issue.

If you've done the 10s of thousands of bike miles you mentioned then I would think you would have a different view on this.

Danjamin1

OP, as others have said here it just sounds like the 5th cyclist was taking primary position on the road, most likely to try and prevent the risk of a potentially dangerous overtake on a poorly lit rural road. Nice one for waiting back until it was safe to overtake the group, but the words of advice, while possibly well intended, will most likely not have been received that way. It's akin to someone rolling down their window as they overtake you in another car and telling you you're taking up the lane and driving slower than they'd like to.

m5ex9oqjawdg2i

shergar22 wrote: »

Why not? If a motorist doesn't drive according to your code of ethics you're quick to come on here and rant about it. Slow down with the Holy Joe attitude.

Reasonable query by OP who sounds like they thought about what they were going to post before they did it. Unlike the majority of the defensive automatic knee-jerk responses to OP's post.

My code of ethics? I complain when road users break the rules of the road, especially when it puts my life in danger. I don't single out groups of road users and it has nothing to do with my code of ethics

Kaisr Sose wrote: »

Thanks for the enlightened input. My sympathies for your encounters today, but don't confuse your experience with cyclists occasionally being wrong. What I seen was dangerous and stupid. I am sure if you drive you would sound your horn if somebody did something stupid or at least think it was bad driving. Sometimes the person doing it does not realise they are causing a problem - and sometimes they do it knowingly.

(By the way I did not do that, nor was it road rage, so please don't speculate that it was or that I am judging others.)

Whether you agree or not, cyclists are sometimes their own worst enemies and acting like you own a poorly lit road is not exactly a great idea at the best of times.

Seeing as you are so knowledgeable of cyclimg rights and wrongs, please tell me, whats right with cycling way out in the roadway on a dark road at night time for no reason? I for one did not see any logical reason for it.

In case you judge me further, I am a cyclist, and regularly cycle along that road in the dark.

I don't use my car horn as a method of expressing my disapproval. There is nothing wrong with taking up a good road position. You're just pissed off that it impeded your progress on the road.

Tenzor07

Yea.. Google map link to the location of the incident?

Lusk_Doyle

Rohan Repulsive Ginger wrote: »

My code of ethics? I complain when road users break the rules of the road, especially when it puts my life in danger. I don't single out groups of road users and it has nothing to do with my code of ethics

I'd like to see a copy of, or a link to, your code of ethics, please.

m5ex9oqjawdg2i

Lusk_Doyle wrote: »

I'd like to see a copy of, or a link to, your code of ethics, please.

What are you talking about???

triggermortis

Lusk_Doyle wrote: »

Maniac!

Said in a Jeremy Clarkson tone.

Whilst driving a Peugeot.. (;))

shergar22

yop wrote: »

If you've done the 10s of thousands of bike miles you mentioned then I would think you would have a different view on this.

I think that's the problem right there. Because you have done 10s of thousands of bike miles you only have one view on it. As many posters have mentioned here, it is a shared road, and therefore all must attempt to use it in a manner which ensures as much safety to all. This may, on a number of occasions see cyclists have to give way/move in from cars/tractors/mopeds/scooters/Wanderly Wagons. And it also means that on occasions motorists will have to wait behind bikes, before being able to overtake them. To take the hardline view the other way, as many posters here appear to be doing, is not just daft, it don't help anybody.

CramCycle

shergar22 wrote: »

I think that's the problem right there. Because you have done 10s of thousands of bike miles you only have one view on it. As many posters have mentioned here, it is a shared road, and therefore all must attempt to use it in a manner which ensures as much safety to all. This may, on a number of occasions see cyclists have to give way/move in from cars/tractors/mopeds/scooters/Wanderly Wagons. And it also means that on occasions motorists will have to wait behind bikes, before being able to overtake them. To take the hardline view the other way, as many posters here appear to be doing, is not just daft, it don't help anybody.

Not really a hardline view though, the OP was able to overtake, in fact:

As I passed, slowly, somwhat amazwd at what I had seen, I rolled down the window, said it was dangerous and tantamount to having a death wish to ride like that at night.

The OP was able to overtake slowly which gives the impression that after waiting for a safe space to overtake (the right thing to do), the OP obviously had a long, clear, sight line (despite it being late in the day) as he was able too slow mid overtake to have a chat with the cyclists (not the right thing to do).

Personally, if I overtake someone or something, I don't hang around, it's not safe and it certainly isn't what I was taught was good practice. Once I get a clear sight line that covers both the distance it would take me to overtake plus the distance a car coming the other direction could expect to cover if it suddenly popped into my sight line, plus a bit extra to be cautious.

Kaisr Sose

CramCycle wrote: »

In terms of stupid behaviour, this seems to be far more wreckless

Why so? As in more reckless than cycling the same distance as 3 abreast would be, while the four in front cycled 2 a breast, within the cycle lane, which has an excellent surface.

CramCycle wrote: »

At night time, with good lights, sounds like the cyclists was cycling in the safest position, certainly where I would chose without any more info, do you have a google map link?

Do you really think being that far out from the left (see above) is the safest position? Safer than following directly behind 4 in front and staying a reasonable distance from the left? That's news to me. The other 4 must have been mad to be cycling in the well defined and well surfaced cycle lane so.

Does it really matter where it was? I can't see how it would be right or safe on any open road, day or night.

Danjamin1

Kaisr Sose wrote: »

Do you really think being that far out from the left (see above) is the safest position? Safer than following directly behind 4 in front and staying a reasonable distance from the left? That's news to me. The other 4 must have been mad to be cycling in the well defined and well surfaced cycle lane so.

Does it really matter where it was? I can't see how it would be right or safe on any open road, day or night.

You're dismissing the reasoned argument people are putting forward quite offhand, especially since you asked for it!

Taking the centre of the lane can often be the safest position to take on the road as it will deter any potentially dangerous overtaking maneuvers.

As you said there was an unbroken white line restricting you from crossing the lane to overtake safely, if the cyclist had been further in to the left would you have been able to safely overtake all five cyclists without squeezing past them at a close distance?

My interpretation of your OP is that this may be what the 5th cyclist could have been trying to prevent.

Kaisr Sose

dubrov wrote: »

I'm amazed at how defensive the responses have been.

Whatever about the cyclist being entitled to do what he did, there is no evidence to suggest that the cyclist was cycling in the safest position.

I don't understand the defensiveness either. The purpose of the post was to see if people agreed it was dangerous, but so far, its not the case.

Sometimes wrong is wrong, and will always be wrong, no matter how you view it. I am pretty sure this was one of those instances.

CramCycle

Kaisr Sose wrote: »

Why so? As in more reckless than cycling the same distance as 3 abreast would be, while the four in front cycled 2 a breast, within the cycle lane, which has an excellent surface.

Well yes, you are in a large box of metal, on the wrong side of the road, now focusing on a "chat" with people to your left, rather than looking at the road in front of you and completing the overtake safely as most people would.

So, yes, more wreckless. You may consider his cycling wreckless but all he really did was inconvenience you. Could he have pulled in a bit, maybe, was there a legitimate reason he didn't, maybe, have you given us more info to clarify the situation better as several posters have interpreted your description slightly differently and clarifying those points might make it easier to understand.

Do you really think being that far out from the left (see above) is the safest position? Safer than following directly behind 4 in front and staying a reasonable distance from the left? That's news to me. The other 4 must have been mad to be cycling in the well defined and well surfaced cycle lane so

.
But your description doesn't make it clear, is it a separate cycle lane and this one cyclist is on the road (so one abreast), is the cycle lane on the road, several people have asked to a google map link to where this occurred so they can better tell what has happened.

Does it really matter where it was? I can't see how it would be right or safe on any open road, day or night.

Well yes because your description still isn't clear. Personally though, if its an on road track, and you could not overtake the one or the group, because it means you would have to cross over the centre of the road, then with rare exceptions, there was no safe way to make that overtake because that's how a safe overtake is done on. If you can't cross the centre of the road to complete the overtake safely, then you can't complete the overtake safely. Alot of people think they can, alot of people do and nothing happens, it does not mean that a lot of people are correct in their risk assessment.