Cycling Two (or more) abreast

The Hill Billy

As a motorist I know that I may be taking my life in my hands here, but I'd like to raise this issue anyway...

Every Saturday & Sunday mornings I meet groups cycling around North Co Dublin, particularly on the coast roads between Balbriggan/Skerries/Rush. The majority of these groups insist on cycling two abreast on winding roads with a continuous white line.

My issue with this is that other road users are then forced to either stay behind the cyclists at a low speed or attempt to overtake them at a safe-ish stretch of road.

Worse still, I regularly encounter a particular group (between Skerries & Balbriggan) that insist on cycling three/four abreast on what is quite a dangerously winding stretch of road with a significant amount of traffic. (So it's not just motoring ol' me who finds this poor form.)

My father-in-law is a hardcore cyclist from Wexford (the type whose idea of a "fun" summer holiday is to cycle from Cherbourg to Istanbul across the Alps & back again) & is appalled at the road-manners he has seen up here.

Surely it would be safer & more considerate of all road users to cycle in single file on roads with a continuous white line & stay at a sensible two abreast where overtaking is allowed?

If you think that I'm bang out of order let me know...

Cabaal

You have a perfectly valid point, cyclists should be careful and should ahve more cop on then to cycle two or more abreast in area's where its not suitable.

Personally I think your safe saying what your saying on this one,

copacetic

I can see how motorists are frustrated and I have been stuck
behind big groups before and it certainly can't help general feelings about cyclists. From a cyclist point of view you are perfectly entitled to cycle 2 abreast and cars having to go at low speed isn't unsafe at all. I'm only a fair weather cyclist but when I have been out with friends who cycle a lot they are very inclined to block a lot of the road. Their experience would be if you cycle single file then car drivers will overtake without a second thought even on roads that haven't enought room, forcing the cyclist into the verge or even clipping them with their wing mirrors. By cycling 2 or more abreast you are basically keeping yourself as safe as possible as cars are forced to wait until it is actually safe to overtake...

The Hill Billy

Thanks for your thoughts DaveyM.

A couple of points though...

daveym wrote:

From a cyclist point of view you are perfectly entitled to cycle 2 abreast

Fair enough - but any idea what the rules of the road are on this one?

daveym wrote:

cars having to go at low speed isn't unsafe at all.

It isn't unsafe until the driver gets peed off after 2 miles doing 30kmh & takes a risk. They shouldn't but they do.

smithslist

This topic is very open-ended on both sides......

first of all it is legal for cyclist to ride 2-a-breast on any roads.....only on the cyclists personal decision is to whether cycle in a single format.

Personally, if the roads are twisiting and winding, i wuld continue to ride two a-breast, cos its 2 dangerous for cars to pass.

On straight narrow roads I will let cars pass.

But at the end of the day, its down too two factors:
1 - whether or not the cyclist will move into a singular line and let cars pass (personally if you a regular cyclists u shuld realise to let cars pass)
2 - The patience of the car driver, why cant you wait an extra 30secs(for example) and then pass the cyclist, why u in such a rush??....If you ever being abroad (Belgium, Australia) drivers dont beep lik crazy at cyclists, they wait until it is safe to pass.....

randomname2005

I have to travel on narrow winding roads on part of my commute, and if I can I tend to stick to the middle of the road on blind corners. A few times when I stayed at the left edge people tried to make crazy overtaking moves only to nearly force me into a wall when they realised a car was coming around the corner. When the road straightens I move to the left to let cars etc pass.
If I was travelling in a group I would certainly stay 2 abreast on these sections.

Civilian_Target

Yep - the continuous white line is exactly why they're cycling two abreast. There isn't safety room on most of these roads for you, at truck and a cyclist to co-exist at speed, on a corner, so they protect themselves from this ever happening by cycling beside each other so you can't overtake.

I understand exactly why you find this frustrating, can I suggest using the cyclist-free motorway, or a different road where possible?

coggs

As a roadie who trains a lot on the road thru out the year i think a lot of you are missing the point . On any training spins that i am on if the is a single white line and a car behind , the last riders calls it and we all go into single file , no if's or but's . Also if its a bad road single file . I have to agree with the first post i have seen some mad road sense from people who are riding for years and think they are totally in the right to go sometimes even three abreast .

cyclopath2001

Hill Billy wrote:

Thanks for your thoughts DaveyM.
Fair enough - but any idea what the rules of the road are on this one?

Two abreast is legally permitted at all times, more when overtaking and it's safe to do so.

robfitz

This is a law in question.

Road Traffic (Traffic and Parking) Regulations, 1997.
...
Pedal Cyclists
47. (1) A pedal cyclist shall not drive a pedal cycle on a roadway in such a manner as to result in more than two pedal cyclists driving abreast, save when overtaking other pedal cyclists, and then only if to do so will not endanger, inconvenience or obstruct other traffic or pedestrians.
(2) Pedal cyclists on a roadway shall cycle in single file when overtaking other traffic.
...

Now cyclists aren't allow obstruct other traffic, but you can only overtake when it's safe to do so.

Road Traffic (Traffic and Parking) Regulations, 1997.
...
Overtaking
10. (1) A driver shall not overtake, or attempt to overtake, if to do so would endanger, or cause inconvenience to, any other person.
(2) A driver shall not overtake, or attempt to overtake, unless the roadway ahead of the driver—
( a ) is free from approaching traffic, pedestrians and any obstruction, and
( b ) is sufficiently long and wide to permit the overtaking to be completed without danger or inconvenience to other traffic or pedestrians.
(3) A driver shall not overtake, or attempt to overtake, on a stretch of roadway on which traffic sign number RUS 014 [no overtaking] has been provided.
(4) Subject to the provisions of sub-article (5), a driver shall overtake on the right and shall not move in towards the left until it is safe to do so.
(5) A driver may only overtake on the left—
( a ) where the driver of the vehicle about to be overtaken has signalled an intention to turn to the right and the driver of the overtaking vehicle intends, after overtaking, to go straight ahead or to turn to the left,
( b ) where the driver of the overtaking vehicle intends, after overtaking, to turn left at the next road junction and has signalled this intention,
( c ) in slow moving traffic, when vehicles in the traffic lane on the driver's right are moving more slowly than the overtaking vehicle.

Now in my opinion a motorist should leave a minimum of 1.5 metres between the cyclist and the vehicle doing the overtaking.

cyclopath2001

robfitz wrote:

This is a law in question.

I doubt if many motorists realise that they can be done for causing 'inconvenience', which to me, would be if it causes me to slow down, brake or go around a car that's in my way after having overtaken me or if I simply cannot proceed because SUV-mammy is blocking the cycle track.

Litcagral

Hill Billy wrote:

As a motorist I know that I may be taking my life in my hands here, but I'd like to raise this issue anyway...

Every Saturday & Sunday mornings I meet groups cycling around North Co Dublin, particularly on the coast roads between Balbriggan/Skerries/Rush. The majority of these groups insist on cycling two abreast on winding roads with a continuous white line.

My issue with this is that other road users are then forced to either stay behind the cyclists at a low speed or attempt to overtake them at a safe-ish stretch of road.

Worse still, I regularly encounter a particular group (between Skerries & Balbriggan) that insist on cycling three/four abreast on what is quite a dangerously winding stretch of road with a significant amount of traffic. (So it's not just motoring ol' me who finds this poor form.)

My father-in-law is a hardcore cyclist from Wexford (the type whose idea of a "fun" summer holiday is to cycle from Cherbourg to Istanbul across the Alps & back again) & is appalled at the road-manners he has seen up here.

Surely it would be safer & more considerate of all road users to cycle in single file on roads with a continuous white line & stay at a sensible two abreast where overtaking is allowed?

If you think that I'm bang out of order let me know...

Hi Billy,

I nearly ploughed into a group of cyclists on a rural road at Damastown (near Garristown) this evening. I came around a bend and they were utilising the full width of the road. I had to take evasive action. I would have imagined that road users as vunerable as cyclists would take more caution approaching bends on a narrow road. There seemed to be some sort of meeting/outing on as I met many more further along towards the Nag's Head.

cargrouch

Litcagral wrote:

Hi Billy,

I nearly ploughed into a group of cyclists on a rural road at Damastown (near Garristown) this evening. I came around a bend and they were utilising the full width of the road. I had to take evasive action. I would have imagined that road users as vunerable as cyclists would take more caution approaching bends on a narrow road. There seemed to be some sort of meeting/outing on as I met many more further along towards the Nag's Head.

You'll be seeing a lot more roadies from now on. While I realise you're saying that self-preservation should encourage them to keep in as far as possible, if it was a tractor instead you would have been in the same trouble.

You were driving according to what you thought was around the corner rather than what could have been around the corner. Now, everybody does it, so not having a go at you. Maybe large clubs should come together and talk to the council to designate certain roads for training rides and put up signs to alert drivers to the fairly high chance of meeting a large group of cylclists between 5.30 and 9pm on a summers evening/ all weekend. Surely some of the more experienced roadies must know how this problem is avoided on the continent? Is it just that they hace/use better roads for training?

I'm a mountain biker at heart, but have done some road rides. I find it a lot more dangerous than anything you'll do offroad. You're stuck in a group, nowhere to go if someone ahead of you goes down, dodging potholes, with a queue of understandably irate drivers behind you. Next thing some guy loses his patience and goes for it despite a continuous white line.

A surprising amount of rides take place over windy roads with poor surfaces and dangerous corners. Wide open roads with a hard shoulder, while few and far between in a lot of the country, don't seem to hold the same appeal!?

Capt'n Midnight

Cycling two abrest means you can talk. It also makes the line of cyclists half as long. If a motorist found a single line of cyclists they would be far more tempted to try to sneak past it. Also if faced with an oncoming car their natural reaction would be to swerve back over.

BTW Cyclists are second class road users, but motorists are a class lower.

kincsem

Valid point. I go out with my brother most Saturdays and we usually go in single file unless there is plenty of room and nil danger.

Another potential problem I see is walkers walking against the flow of traffic. Most would say this is correct. But when they are walking up a steep hill with sharp corners on a single lane road (Sugarloaf road) against the flow then they can not see what is coming at speed. It would be safer for them (and cyclists) if they went with the flow up steep hills.

The Hill Billy

kincsem wrote:

Another potential problem I see is walkers walking against the flow of traffic. Most would say this is correct. But when they are walking up a steep hill with sharp corners on a single lane road (Sugarloaf road) against the flow then they can not see what is coming at speed. It would be safer for them (and cyclists) if they went with the flow up steep hills.

I understand where you are coming from on this as I live that the top of a steep winding hill - which too many non-local drivers speed down in the center of the road. However, it would mean that the walkers would have to keep crossing the road depending on whether they were approaching a right-hand or left-hand bend.

roadmanmad

You are all so lucky, I wrote a very. very long piece on this the other evening and I lost it before I could post it. There is no way I am going to type that all again. I am a driver of 25+ years and a cyclist (roadie) of 35+.

To summarise,

Cars, trucks & Buses: fast.

Tractors cyclist & padestrains slow.

Our problems start when we start sharing the road.

It is too easy for a car driver (worst abusers in my view) to crib about slow moving traffic. To slow down to take due diligence is definitely a crime.

Cycling two abreast can be risk reducing. When there is only one, you must stay out to protect yourself.

I try to explain to non cyclists the experience of being overtaken

Imagine you are driving along a beautiful straight road (say 120 kph). Hold that thought.

Now imagine the wheels of a 747 appearing about 5 feet to your right. This guy has just come out of nowhere. Most people at this stage of the story say 's***'. Now what are you thinking as this hugely imposing machine is within your comfort zone.

Now imagine you look ahead and you see another 747. Only this 747 is in the path of the one alongside you and a little further to the right. Where you think the 747 alongside you is going to go, maybe just a little bit in your direction. Now what would be your thought process in this senario. Now think of a cyclist being passed by a car.

I think the scale helps clueless drivers (and many are clueless) to appreciate the concept. They have no idea.

Any driver who cribs about cyclists, I say go and cycle. Say 100 miles. Then come back we will all listen to how badly you were treated out there.

Just in case everyone thinks i am anti-car driver, please see my critisism of a 13 minute commute video over in the motors forum. It is worth a watch. Only download on High speed, otherwise it could take forever. I do believe in standards.

Remember: A really steep hill is one you go down slower than you go up.

Litcagral

roadmanmad wrote:

You are all so lucky, I wrote a very. very long piece on this the other evening and I lost it before I could post it. There is no way I am going to type that all again. I am a driver of 25+ years and a cyclist (roadie) of 35+.

To summarise,

Cars, trucks & Buses: fast.

Tractors cyclist & padestrains slow.

Our problems start when we start sharing the road.

It is too easy for a car driver (worst abusers in my view) to crib about slow moving traffic. To slow down to take due diligence is definitely a crime.

Cycling two abreast can be risk reducing. When there is only one, you must stay out to protect yourself.

I try to explain to non cyclists the experience of being overtaken

Imagine you are driving along a beautiful straight road (say 120 kph). Hold that thought.

Now imagine the wheels of a 747 appearing about 5 feet to your right. This guy has just come out of nowhere. Most people at this stage of the story say 's***'. Now what are you thinking as this hugely imposing machine is within your comfort zone.

Now imagine you look ahead and you see another 747. Only this 747 is in the path of the one alongside you and a little further to the right. Where you think the 747 alongside you is going to go, maybe just a little bit in your direction. Now what would be your thought process in this senario. Now think of a cyclist being passed by a car.

I think the scale helps clueless drivers (and many are clueless) to appreciate the concept. They have no idea.

Any driver who cribs about cyclists, I say go and cycle. Say 100 miles. Then come back we will all listen to how badly you were treated out there.

Just in case everyone thinks i am anti-car driver, please see my critisism of a 13 minute commute video over in the motors forum. It is worth a watch. Only download on High speed, otherwise it could take forever. I do believe in standards.

Remember: A really steep hill is one you go down slower than you go up.

Good post roadmanmad,

Just in case people thought I was anti-cyclist, I'm most definitely not. I spent years on a bike. My post refered to a group of cyclists who were four/five abreast and took up the full width of a narrow bendy rural road. I've no problem with two abreast and I agree with the posters who say that it is safer, i.e. less temptation to pass unless it's really safe to do so.