A perfect illustration of the problem.

In the attached photo, spend a moment looking at the two riders at the front. For most road users,  they're doing the right thing, or as close to doing "the right thing" as possible. They're both close together and they're both in the bike lane.  Sure,  it's a shoulder,  not a specific bike lane,  but what difference does a name make?  It's obviously wide enough and smooth enough for the lead riders to feel perfectly comfortable about riding there.

Now, check out the way this bunch is fanning out and getting wider and wider as your eyes move towards the back. That, right there, is the problem with cyclists riding in bunches. Cyclists want to have their cake and eat it too when they ride in groups. They want to enjoy the benefits of drafting but they also want to be able to see where they're going. So, inevitably, they fan out and get wider and wider the bigger the group.

Cyclists don't like the push for Compulsory Single File because it's a message which is on point and they know it will have a direct impact on their ability to enjoy recreational cycling.  Nonetheless,  the internet is full of photos similar to the photo attached to this update,  and cyclists know it.  This shot,  for example,  is lifted from a cycling magazine. It perfectly illustrates why motorists become so exasperated with cyclists riding in large groups. Imagine if you will,  you're a motorist coming around that corner approaching these cyclists from behind.  What would be the first thing you see?  The riders at the front,  the riders who are trying to stay as narrow as possible?  Or the riders at the back,  the riders who have fanned out wide into the main traffic lane?

Compare the riders at the rear to the riders at the front. These riders aren't riding "two straight lines" and the reality is,  cyclists rarely do.  They love to put up perfectly scripted photos of cyclists in matching kits riding in perfect straight formation but in reality it's fantasy,  it's not what happens.  THIS photo in THIS update is what happens in reality.  You won't get a better illustration of why Compulsory Single File is necessary.  But....  But....  But....  you'll hear cyclists say....  100 cyclists riding two abreast is a shorter line than 100 cyclists riding single file!  So what?  Who among us thinks that 100 cyclists gathering together to use our road system for recreation is a good idea,  other than the cyclists themselves?  100 cyclists riding together isn't a social outing,  it's an event.  It's organised,  usually on social media.  It doesn't happen by accident.  And there's the double standard. Cyclists are allowed to organise large participation events on our road system without permits or size limits,  but nobody else is allowed to criticise them for it.

Inevitably the cycling lobby will wring their hands in angst when they read this post. After all,  it's what they do.  They call it advocacy.  They'll spend thousands of man-hours on social media talking amongst themselves, dissecting every sentence, fabricating elaborate rebuttals designed to make them feel better among themselves. Whatever... at the end of the day, the only people who listen to the self indulgent waffle that cyclists babble on with is (you guessed it) cyclists. Nobody else gives a poop what they have to say, and with good reason. 99% of the time, if you try to talk logically with a cyclist about their behaviour (and make no mistake,  they know they have a behaviour problem), well,  99% of the time you're going to get the exact same response as if you were talking to a religious zealot who is choosing to interpret EVERYTHING YOU SAY as an attack on their religious belief system. Which is another way of saying... don't waste your time. Don't even bother trying to talk rationally with cyclists. Cycling is their religion.  Put another way,  the more they get wrapped up in the bunch riding lifestyle,  the more they can't be told.

Here are some typical deflection examples they reach for when you,  a motorist,  argues Compulsory Single File is necessary.

• 1200 motorists died last year,  how are cyclists the problem?  Focus on what counts!
• Cars need to be registered but they still run red lights.  How is rego for bike riders going to solve the problem?
• You got held up for 30 seconds you fat overweight diabetic slob.  What was so hard about using the brake pedal?
• You're in a two ton missile.  You tried to kill me.
• Every time you come too close to me it's attempted murder.  
• Cycling came before the motor vehicle.  Bicycles were used by the Diggers in World War One.
• Are you saying we need to put rego numbers on pedestrians too?
• You're nothing but a bigot.  You're a bogan bigot.
• You just criticised my love of cycling.  That's Hate Speech!  You deserve to be banned from social media for using Hate Speech!

Do those responses sound familiar?  We've all heard them a million times.  Indeed, you may have noticed... if you ever HAVE tried to talk rationally with a cyclist,  especially a MAMIL who loves to ride in bunches, you may have noticed they have a wallet full of handy, pre-rehearsed deflections specifically designed to steer you off point, instead of staying on point. It's been said before, but it's worth saying again. Cyclists are aware they have a behaviour problem. That's WHY they've perfected the art of deflection when you try to engage them on the subject.

Another popular deflection which is regularly used by the cycling lobby to oppose Compulsory Single File is the false claim that riding single file invites motorists to squeeze past when a safe margin isn't available.  Well sorry,  is that not an admission the Safe Passing Laws don't work?  After all,  is that not precisely the behaviour the Safe Passing Laws are designed to stop?  You can't have it both ways cycling lobby.  

Perhaps the most cynical response of all by the cycling lobby is the ridiculous claim which argues a desire for Compulsory Single File is 100% equal to inciting violence towards cyclists.  Hence,  the push for Compulsory Single File is actually hate speech.  Hence, the petition for Compulsory Single File should be removed from change dot org.  Stop and ponder for a moment the long bow we had to draw to reach that logical conclusion?  That's the logic the cycling lobby is trying to use at the moment.  They're using that logic because they know Compulsory Single File will make large scale recreational bunch cycling much harder to enjoy and that's not an outcome they want,  hence,  claiming CSF is hate speech is the logical fallacy they're falling back on. 

At it's core, the ongoing debate regarding cycling on our roads is one which revolves around "acceptable behaviour." The cyclist argues their behaviour is lawful, therefore it's acceptable. The motorist argues their behaviour isn't acceptable, therefore the relevant legislation needs to change.

In closing, if you're a motorist and you'd like to see the cycling problem get sorted? Sadly,  we can't do it all for you. We can help by running this petition to give an indication of how many of you WANT a solution,  but ultimately you (the motorists of Australia) need to start acting as one voice. You need to start sending emails to your local Members of Parliament.  Emails in which you state your desire to see Compulsory Single File become enshrined in legislation. The relevant legislation needs to change, and right here, right now, cyclists are gambling that you, the motorists of Australia won't ever get your act together, hence they're also gambling the relevant legislation won't ever change.  But fear not,  laws can change,  laws DO change.  Who would have thought 15 years ago that we'd have same sex marriage for example?