Should cycling two abreast be allowed?

greenspurs

Dublin Spur wrote: »

What I don't think is fair is side-by-side cycling as it causes unnecessary congestion (and potential danger) for other road users. The need to cycle side-by-side seems to be driven by cyclists that like to chat as they cycle from what I have seen. The road between Baldoyle and Portmarnock is particular bad for this kind of thing. Cycle single file and there's no issue at all.

If you want to chat go to the pub, if you want to cycle just cycle and respect other road users, its not complicated really.

(Potential danger) for other road users ?? Really ? How.

How does a PERSON that cycles cause a PERSON that drives a motorised vehicle (potential danger) ?

There is no law against chatting while cycling (yet).
And as has been mentioned thousands of times on Boards (in about 500threads) it is safer to cycle 2 abreast, and also convenient for tolerant capable people driving vehicles (If they can wait until there is no oncoming traffic before overtaking safely).
Going by that remark , you must be one of the "ill squeeze past , its grand" brigade , when you see cyclists riding in single file , and overtake whether there is oncoming traffic or not ?

People that cycle are PEOPLE .... People that have a family at home, and don't deserved to be close-passed /knocked off their bike , because they might have caused you to wait for 30secs before you could overtake safely !!
Intolerance is worse than Ignorance ......

amcalester

Dublin Spur wrote: »

I don't agree that its safer - well maybe for the cyclist in the inside

I can see why you would think that, but in practice it is safer for the outside cyclist too as it means the motorist has to overtake as they would another vehicle by changing lanes or moving further to the right.

Fighting Tao

Dublin Spur wrote: »

Ah come on there are issues for the motorists when 2 cyclists are needlessly cycling side by side and clogging up the road behind them

On that road in particular, thankfully they are building a walk way (I think including cycle path) so the issue should resolve its self on that stretch. Should have been done years ago but better late than never.

Safety is not “needlessly cycling side by side”.

Fighting Tao

Spook_ie wrote: »

And you've also been told numerous times that cyclists don't single out when it's safe to do so, look at the example video from page 2 or 3 of the thread, on the bends no problem but when they get to the straight section move the **** over!

Who are you to judge what is safe for people on bikes?

greenspurs

Dublin Spur wrote: »

I don't agree that its safer - well maybe for the cyclist in the inside

So you are inferring the person cycling on the outside is in danger ?
Because they cycle legally 2 abreast ?? Because its judged proper riding position on the road ?
Really ???

That is the attitude that caused me to stop riding, because of cnuts driving cars that thought I didn't deserve to ride on the public road.
My kids at home are more important, so I had enough.

amcalester

greenspurs wrote: »

So you are inferring the person cycling on the outside is in danger ?
Because they cycle legally 2 abreast ?? Because its judged proper riding position on the road ?
Really ???

That is the attitude that caused me to stop riding, because of cnuts driving cars that thought I didn't deserve to ride on the public road.
My kids at home are more important, so I had enough.

I don't think that is what that poster is saying.

My reading of it was the the outside rider is in danger because a motorist might hit him from behind rather than go around the cyclist.

Obviously, that's not what happens.

07Lapierre

Dublin Spur wrote: »

there you go.

the thing a lot of folk forget is that the vast majority of cyclists are also motorists. That should allow cyclists all to see both sides of the debate.

We do see both sides. When driving we know how and when to overtake cyclists.

AndrewJRenko

Dublin Spur wrote: »

amcalester wrote: »

No issue for the motorist, plenty of issues for the single cyclists that are regularly dangerously overtaken on that stretch.

Look how little space there is in the link below between the car and the ditch LINK

Ah come on there are issues for the motorists when 2 cyclists are needlessly cycling side by side and clogging up the road behind them

On that road in particular, thankfully they are building a walk way (I think including cycle path) so the issue should resolve its self on that stretch. Should have been done years ago but better late than never.

How much time do you spend stuck behind cyclists compared to the time spent stuck behind other cars?

AndrewJRenko

Dublin Spur wrote: »

amcalester wrote: »

It's not needlessly cycling 2 abreast, it's cycling 2 abreast for increased safety. I wouldn't want a car trying to squeeze past me on that stretch because there's on-coming traffic stopping them moving out to the right.

2 abreast means a motorist won't/can't do that.

And, sure why not explain what those issues are and why they should take priority over the cyclist's safety.

I don't agree that its safer - well maybe for the cyclist in the inside

And yet, just about every cycling club, every cycling lobby group in the world and many road safety experts disagree with you.

Do you pull over in heavy urban traffic when faster cyclists come up behind?

Spook_ie

xckjoo wrote: »

You've already admitted you never encounter the issue so how do you know what they do? I actually haven't been told that at all. I'm not sure 0 qualifies for the term 'numerous'.

That video looks like an instructional video for why people should cycle 2 abreast. Should they have ridden in the ditch so the people carriers could try and squeeze past on the solid white line with oncoming traffic on blind corners? As a self proclaimed expert on the rules of the road, which part of that setup is conducive to safe overtaking?

No Hurrache has said I never encounter 10 or so cars in the queue, no ones ever said I've never encountered cyclists in multiples of 2, living in NCD it's highly unlikely that I wouldn't.

Also as regards the video did I not say riding 2 abreast on the series of bends fine but when you get to the straight bit move the **** over!

Originally Posted by Spook_ie View Post
And you've also been told numerous times that cyclists don't single out when it's safe to do so, look at the example video from page 2 or 3 of the thread, on the bends no problem but when they get to the straight section move the **** over!

I would normally throw in some quip just for you but seeing as you obviously only read every 2nd or 3rd word it would be a waste of time.

amcalester

Spook_ie wrote: »

No Hurrache has said I never encounter 10 or so cars in the queue, no ones ever said I've never encountered cyclists in multiples of 2, living in NCD it's highly unlikely that I wouldn't.

Also as regards the video did I not say riding 2 abreast on the series of bends fine but when you get to the straight bit move the **** over!



I would normally throw in some quip just for you but seeing as you obviously only read every 2nd or 3rd word it would be a waste of time.

No room to single out, safer to continue side by side.

jimgoose

Hoboo wrote: »

Is that because in theory it will make the pack shorter?

No - it forces motorists to perform an actual overtake instead of blowing by single-file riders probably too close. Personally, I think it's a good thing.

Spook_ie

amcalester wrote: »

No room to single out, safer to continue side by side.

Just as that video was ending was a long straight road which the cyclists would have seen BEFORE the camera car, there seemed to be no effort to single out, perhaps it was because it would have complicated their rotations to the front but no effort made.

Spook_ie

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

And yet, just about every cycling club, every cycling lobby group in the world and many road safety experts disagree with you.

Do you pull over in heavy urban traffic when faster cyclists come up behind?

Yet again with the obfuscation, yet again I'm asking you to clarify do you mean pulling to one side when a cycling club is coming through town or what? If you aren't prepared to answer then it might be polite for you to desist from obfuscating the thread.

amcalester

Spook_ie wrote: »

Just as that video was ending was a long straight road which the cyclists would have seen BEFORE the camera car, there seemed to be no effort to single out, perhaps it was because it would have complicated their rotations to the front but no effort made.

Yeah, it is quite a long straight stretch after the bends but it is also quite narrow and some motorists will try and squeeze past even with on-coming traffic so safer to stay side by side.

If there is no on-coming traffic then with the long straight stretch there's no issue overtaking.

tuxy

amcalester wrote: »

Yeah, it is quite a long straight stretch after the bends but it is also quite narrow and some motorists will try and squeeze past even with on-coming traffic so safer to stay side by side.

If there is no on-coming traffic then with the long straight stretch there's no issue overtaking.

Exactly if you have to cross over to the other side to make a safe overtake, which is the case on the road in the video then single file won't help as the driver might as well use the all of the other lane.
There are instances where single file makes sense but this is not one of them.

amcalester

tuxy wrote: »

Exactly if you have to cross over to the other side to make a safe overtake, which is the case on the road in the video then single file won't help as the driver might as well use the all of the other lane.
There are instances where single file makes sense but this is not one of them.

I wonder if there is any correlation between motorists complaining about cyclists 2 abreast and motorists who pass single cyclists dangerously close?

Spook_ie

amcalester wrote: »

Yeah, it is quite a long straight stretch after the bends but it is also quite narrow and some motorists will try and squeeze past even with on-coming traffic so safer to stay side by side.

If there is no on-coming traffic then with the long straight stretch there's no issue overtaking.

Disagree, given all this baloney about being shorter and therefore easier to overtake the motorist who is tempted to overtake a single line of cyclists is just as likely to make a judgement they can get past in time.

Many times in dash videos you will see drivers pull in because someone made a balls of a judgement call when overtaking something in the opposite direction, being 2 abreast doesn't change that.

amcalester

Spook_ie wrote: »

Disagree, given all this baloney about being shorter and therefore easier to overtake the motorist who is tempted to overtake a single line of cyclists is just as likely to make a judgement they can get past in time.

Many times in dash videos you will see drivers pull in because someone made a balls of a judgement call when overtaking something in the opposite direction, being 2 abreast doesn't change that.

Probably true for those motorists that are just poor drivers, but they'd also be the ones to squeeze past a single cyclist so the result is probably the same in that case.

But that motorist is very much the exception, so for other safer motorists it encourages safer overtaking.

Unless you are saying that the majority of motorists behave like this?

tuxy

amcalester wrote: »

Probably true for those motorists that are just poor drivers, but they'd also be the ones to squeeze past a single cyclist so the result is probably the same in that case.

But that motorist is very much the exception, so for other safer motorists it encourages safer overtaking.

Unless you are saying that the majority of motorists behave like this?

From my experience most motorists are well able to make a safe overtake.
Even the ones that get right up behind cyclists and try to force them into the ditch give up on that tactic if the cyclists holds position and then realise making a safe overtake is the only way past.

Wombatman

Those who argue that two abreast cycling is safer should logically take up the position of the outer rider when cycling alone.

Is this correct? Is this what you do?

Fighting Tao

Wombatman wrote: »

Those who argue that two abreast cycling is safer should logically take up the position of the outer rider when cycling alone.

Is this correct? Is this what you do?

We do when the road dictates it is safer. For example I do it all the time in the bus lane from Merrion Gates to to the junction with Woodbine any time I’m on that route.

Lefty Bicek

Fighting Tao wrote: »

We do when the road dictates it is safer.

So two abreast is not then, of itself, safer.

tuxy

Lefty Bicek wrote: »

So two abreast is not then, of itself, safer.

Exactly it depends on the road condition and the number of cyclists in the group and many other factors.

Wombatman

Fighting Tao wrote: »

We do when the road dictates it is safer. For example I do it all the time in the bus lane from Merrion Gates to to the junction with Woodbine any time I’m on that route.

So if with someone you would switch to single file when the 'road dedicates'. Fair play. This will stop dangerous tailbacks of faster vehicles building up.

AndrewJRenko

Spook_ie wrote: »

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

And yet, just about every cycling club, every cycling lobby group in the world and many road safety experts disagree with you.

Do you pull over in heavy urban traffic when faster cyclists come up behind?

Yet again with the obfuscation, yet again I'm asking you to clarify do you mean pulling to one side when a cycling club is coming through town or what? If you aren't prepared to answer then it might be polite for you to desist from obfuscating the thread.

Do you really need someone to spell it for you? Every situation is different - it might mean pulling over, it might mean moving further out to the right to make room, it might mean moving forward or back to make room for others to get through.

It looks like you've never considered the wild possibility that a motorist should move to make room for a cyclist if you really need this spelt out. That says a lot about your attitude to "due consideration".

Lefty Bicek

Weepsie wrote: »

Yes and no.
But a group of say 8 cyclists in a 2 abreast formation, will be quicker, and likely safer to overtake than they would in single file.

If there are four cyclists in the group, in single file - are either of the two lines that would have been taken by the 2x4 group, safer than the other ? The inside, or the outside ?

From the point of overtaking vehicles I mean, rather than road debris, risk of puncture etc.

RacoonQueen

Wombatman wrote: »

So if with someone you would switch to single file when the 'road dedicates'. Fair play. This will stop dangerous tailbacks of faster vehicles building up.

Dangerous tailbacks? What are they? Are they different from other tailbacks?

iamtony

Spook_ie wrote: »

Disagree, given all this baloney about being shorter and therefore easier to overtake the motorist who is tempted to overtake a single line of cyclists is just as likely to make a judgement they can get past in time.

Many times in dash videos you will see drivers pull in because someone made a balls of a judgement call when overtaking something in the opposite direction, being 2 abreast doesn't change that.

As another Taxi driver I would just like to say the majority of us are good with cyclists and a lot of us actually cycle for a hobby. I believe cycling 2 abreast is the way to go but if there's a build up of cars then going to single file is there's only a few out is good manners. Once the car has slowed down and is looking for the overtake.
People need to chill out your not getting anywhere any faster. People die on the roads from speed everyday.
Spookie maybe you should do a bit of cycling so you can see it from both sides.

AndrewJRenko

Wombatman wrote: »

Fighting Tao wrote: »

We do when the road dictates it is safer. For example I do it all the time in the bus lane from Merrion Gates to to the junction with Woodbine any time I’m on that route.

So if with someone you would switch to single file when the 'road dedicates'. Fair play. This will stop dangerous tailbacks of faster vehicles building up.

Why are tailbacks dangerous?

Seth Brundle

iamtony wrote: »

As another Taxi driver I would just like to say the majority of us are good with cyclists and a lot of us actually cycle for a hobby. I believe cycling 2 abreast is the way to go but if there's a build up of cars then going to single file is there's only a few out is good manners. Once the car has slowed down and is looking for the overtake.
People need to chill out your not getting anywhere any faster. People die on the roads from speed everyday.
Spookie maybe you should do a bit of cycling so you can see it from both sides.

Whilst I agree with the sentiment of your post, the difficulty is dickhead motorists who think the narrow gap to pass is safe when the cyclist sees it as unsafe.
Many cyclists take ownership of the road in order to protect themselves. Motorists get pissed off with this because they are (in their view) unnecessarily delayed. They then start looking for gaps in which to pass and as time passes the likleihood of a taking a risk increases.
Someone who has not cycled in these circumstances won't understand the feeling of a close pass and can't put themselves in that situation*. The assumption by the driver is presumably that they are in full control. A cyclist is effectively a bystander to the event and can't do anything to defend themselves against these motorists.

Some of those on here complaining about cyclists haven't the experience to know how it feels to feel vulnerable on the road. When so called professional drivers cannot empathise with other road users (not referring to you iamtony), one would be right to question their abilties.



* imaging standing on a train platform, on the wrong side of the yellow line, with your back to an oncoming train.

Lefty Bicek

Seth Brundle wrote: »

Whilst I agree with the sentiment of your post, the difficulty is dickhead motorists who think the narrow gap to pass is safe when the cyclist sees it as unsafe.

Until the difficulty is dickhead cyclists who are selfishly nattering three+ abreast, oblivious to other traffic users. Posers.

This is a regularity on the old N7 around Birdhill. It's a 100kmph road, with a fairly decent cycling lane, and yet...

Many cyclists take ownership of the road in order to protect themselves. Motorists get pissed off with this because they are (in their view) unnecessarily delayed.

And because cyclists actually don't own the road.

I say all this as a long-distance solo cyclist.

Wombatman

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

Why are tailbacks dangerous?

People start taking chances if they are held up for an inordinate amount of time.

Changing human behavior = very difficulty.
Cyclists choosing to go single file = very easy.

Wombatman

Wombatman wrote: »

Those who argue that two abreast cycling is safer should logically take up the position of the outer rider when cycling alone.

Is this correct? Is this what you do?

AndrewJRenko - Can you address this please?

Wombatman

Weepsie wrote: »

Yes and no.

But a group of say 8 cyclists in a 2 abreast formation, will be quicker, and likely safer to overtake than they would in single file.

People can overtake slow moving tractors, trucks, vans etc with due consideration. Cyclists seem to really test their ability. Even with no oncoming traffic, and a wide open lane on the other side, I get close passes.

Deffo safer a few pages ago. Now likely safer.

Progress at last.

PeadarCo

Wombatman wrote:

AndrewJRenko - Can you address this please?

Depending on the context especially coming up to road abouts, when turning right, when doing the same speed as the surrounding traffic a cyclist should take the centre of the lane. In general a cyclist should never hug the left hand of the road, there should always be room to manoeuvre on the left.

Seth Brundle

Wombatman wrote: »

Wombatman wrote: »

Those who argue that two abreast cycling is safer should logically take up the position of the outer rider when cycling alone.

Is this correct? Is this what you do?

AndrewJRenko - Can you address this please?

I am not going to try and speak for AJR but if I cycle along the N4 to work I cycle in the middle of the buslane.
Why?
The cycle path is crap so I cycle on the road. If I cycle too close to the kerb, some taxi drivers will pass by with inches to spare, generally at an inappropriate speed.
They usually honk the horn just in case I didn't notice the car and didn't feel the draft from the passby.
Rarely would they have a fare in the car and one would suspect that they had no right to be there!

To answer your question, if I cycle in the middle of the lane, they must move over into lane 1 in order to overtake - they tend to get the message. The odd one will still try and punish me for my line but they would be the ones to do that anyhow I guess.
Strangely, busses rarely have an issue with my position.

I will also acknowledge good driver behaviour with a wave or whatever, as I would when I'm driving.

Exodus 1811

Wombatman wrote: »

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

Why are tailbacks dangerous?

People start taking chances if they are held up for an inordinate amount of time.

Changing human behavior = very difficulty.
Cyclists choosing to go single file = very easy.

Jesus, that’s some reach!

Humans are operating the vehicles who are taking the chances dangerously overtaking. Humans are also the people cycling in 2 abreast for safety. Who should change behavior?

Are you saying drivers are some sort of thickos who take years of training with treats to take a breath and pass when it’s safe? Much like a dog being taught to juggle?

Pinch Flat

Fair play OP. Not even 2 weeks into the new year and you’ve ploughed the depths of boards.ie for debate that’s never been mentioned before. These debates are important to have. All in all a good start to 2019.

07Lapierre

Wombatman wrote: »

Those who argue that two abreast cycling is safer should logically take up the position of the outer rider when cycling alone.

Is this correct? Is this what you do?

Pretty much, yes. Cycling too close to the kerb/ditch only encourages close passes. By cycling about a meter or so out from the kerb, means any cars approaching from behind must slow a bit and if they want to pass, they must check mirrors, indicate, manoeuvre... also known as a "safe overtake manoeuvre"

Fighting Tao

Wombatman wrote: »

So if with someone you would switch to single file when the 'road dedicates'. Fair play. This will stop dangerous tailbacks of faster vehicles building up.

There is nothing dangerous about tailbacks and as most here seems to acknowledge they are rarely caused by cyclists. The danger is drivers.

If I feel it so safe for a vehicle to pass I would single out. If I don’t feel the location is safe I won’t single out.

Fighting Tao

iamtony wrote: »

As another Taxi driver I would just like to say the majority of us are good with cyclists and a lot of us actually cycle for a hobby. I believe cycling 2 abreast is the way to go but if there's a build up of cars then going to single file is there's only a few out is good manners. Once the car has slowed down and is looking for the overtake.
People need to chill out your not getting anywhere any faster. People die on the roads from speed everyday.
Spookie maybe you should do a bit of cycling so you can see it from both sides.

I completely agree with the bolded bit. Of all segments of society taxi drivers know what it’s like to be tarnished with the same brush and therefore should relate to cyclists. Tbh, I don’t notice most taxi drivers when driving or cycling because they aren’t risking my life. IMO, it is the bad taxi drivers that generally are the ones spouting off about other road users and are the ones that I notice on the road.

AndrewJRenko

Wombatman wrote: »

People start taking chances if they are held up for an inordinate amount of time.

Changing human behavior = very difficulty.
Cyclists choosing to go single file = very easy.

This may come as a surprise to you, but cyclists are human. So changing behaviour for cyclists is just as much a human behaviour issue as changing behaviour of motorists.

But your response speaks volumes.

RacoonQueen

Wombatman wrote: »

People start taking chances if they are held up for an inordinate amount of time.

That is not caused by the tailback. That is caused by a dangerous, impatient driver.