Cyclists' responsibility for their own safety *warning* infractions given liberally for trolling etc

...

...

Still declining to answer the question, I see.

Passing anything on a 3m wide road; whether it's people on bikes (either single file or two abreast), a tractor, people on horses, people walking etc.; requires slowing down, evaluating the road ahead, and waiting for a straight section if you can't see far enough ahead to be sure you can complete the overtaking manoeuvre without finding yourself on the wrong side of the road facing an oncoming vehicle.

So I don't see the specific danger you are attributing to riding two abreast unless that danger comes from:

a) drivers wanting to travel narrow roads at a speed that does not allow them to stop safely if they come up behind another road user, which is illegal.

b) drivers want to overtake any 'obstruction' (your word to describe fellow road users) as soon as they encounter them, without taking the time to do a safe overtaking manoeuvre, which is also illegal.

Third request, what specifically is the danger you see from riding two abreast that could be ameliorated by riding single file?

I've explained in detail further up this thread why my many decades of experience both driving and cycling lead me to conclude that riding in primary position when alone, or two abreast when in a group, can be safer in many road situations. Please show the courtesy of explaining how and why you disagree if you're going to keep parroting this statement about cyclists endangering themselves.

16 = Number of times @apogee87 demonstrated a complete lack of understanding of the rules of the road and motor traffic laws.

6 = Number of times @apogee87 responded with a schoolyard taunt rather than trying to address points raised.

5 = Number of claims by @apogee87 that people on bikes shouldn't be cycling two abreast or that they were putting themselves in danger by doing so.

4 = Number of times @apogee87 responded to requests to clarify the source of this danger either with clumsy attempts at changing the subject or just not responded at all.

CONCLUSIONS:

1) @apogee87 does not have any valid reason for believing people on bikes are putting themselves in danger by riding 2 abreast but is sore that it physically impedes him from driving illegally, and putting other road users at risk, just to make his journey time a few seconds shorter.

2) @apogee87 has no interest in actually understanding his legal obligations on the roads we have to share with him, only on distorting misunderstood half-facts to convince himself that being behind the wheel of a car somehow gives him priority over 'lesser' road users.

3) there is no point in engaging further as you might as well be trying to explain the finer points of particle physics to a 3 year old.

EDITED to correct typo

There's a difference between being at fault if you don't do something, and it just being a good idea. For example, my car predates the EU rules on Daytime Running Lights. Therefore, I am under no legal obligation to have running lights during the daytime (beyond brake, reversing and indicator lights). However, I usually turn on my low-beams, especially during inclement weather, even though there absolutely no law requiring me to do this. Why? Because it's a good idea.

And as a motorist, I certainly would be blamed if I were in an accident caused by not having legally required lights, e.g. non-functional lights at night time.

Island vehicles are exempt from NCT and are 100 euro to tax, but yeah you rarely see even that being paid.

"Exemptions from NCT,Cars permanently based on islands that are not connected to the mainland by road do not have to be tested.