Its legal in ALL circumstances. See if you dont know, try not to guess.
Rule 66
"You can ride two abreast and it can be safer to do so, particularly in larger groups or when accompanying children or less experienced riders. Be aware of drivers behind you, and allow them to overtake (e.g. by moving into single file or stopping) when you feel it is safe to let them do so."
I was crossing on a toucan crossing. And some old git in his car rolled down the window to berate me that it was against the law to ride across the crossing point.
He clearly hadnt a clue about the law and despite me telling him, repeatedly shook his head in disagreement.
Thats what we're faced with. People who clearly have no idea, but stoically stick to their wrong concept or notion rather than actually knowing the law.
Toucan crossing points are covered in the road traffic act 1988 -highlighted in the Highway code Rule 25.
and why there is conflict
the highway code says, ‘you can’ where safe… and that sits alongside all the other requirements to be safe and not cause conflict - beholden on all road users…
if it is not safe then cyclists can / will be / have been held at fault for accidents… I can think of for example a 60mph stretch of road which is narrow enough and turns sharply over a hump-backed bridge so that two cyclists side by side there would not be safe and would cause conflict - as it is not safe, then the ‘you can’ in the highway code would not apply, therefore it would not be legal…
the bullish attitude of ‘the wording says x therefore we can always do y’ is a big part of what causes conflict on the roads, and exactly this approach of assuming that something is always allowed with no reference to the context is downright foolish if it puts vulnerable road users in danger - and regardless of hierarchy of road users, the starting point has to be safety and consideration for and by all…
I am a keen road user on both bike and by car, I have zero issue patiently waiting for cyclists, but I see as much arrogance from cyclists as car users… I also read and study highway code and underlying law with every change
this is from the government’s own website explaining the recent changes:
The updated code explains that people cycling in groups:
- should be considerate of the needs of other road users when riding in groups
- can ride 2 abreast - and it can be safer to do so, particularly in larger groups or when accompanying children or less experienced riders
People cycling are asked to be aware of people driving behind them and allow them to overtake (for example, by moving into single file or stopping) when it’s safe to do so.
key points: ‘can’ ride two abreast is conditional
’should’ be considerate of others is not conditional
the guidance still says that cyclists need to be aware of people driving behind and allow them to overtake when safe either by moving into single file or by stopping…
there is no option for cyclists who are bolshie, misquote the highway code out of context and stubbornly cause conflict by remaining two abreast…
I am sure that is not you, but you can see why the belief that it is always legal (and by implication cyclists can go everywhere side by side) will be a cause of conflict when it clearly doesn’t sit comfortably with the highway code
ultimately it is about safety and enjoying the road - all road users have an obligation to contribute to that, the issue is that we have seen a rise in legalistic road users, even those out to provoke / entrap others (esp. on camera), if all road users aim for consideration and patience we would have no issues
I suggest you get an aero bike and more lycra. You'll be really popular then. 
. 
