Should cycling two abreast be allowed?

xckjoo

Dublin Spur wrote: »

So simply driving is now selfish? I'm not much of a driver by the way, the car is mostly only used at weekends.

Just to be clear on this I have no difficulty with cycling or cyclists, good luck to them.

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.

I think most people will argue that the reason for the side-by-side cycling is for safety. And even a minor accident will cause bigger delays than any pair of bikes so there is that

amcalester

Dublin Spur wrote: »

So simply driving is now selfish? I'm not much of a driver by the way, the car is mostly only used at weekends.

Just to be clear on this I have no difficulty with cycling or cyclists, good luck to them.

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.

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

Spook_ie

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

Selfish? What's more selfish than driving round with four empty seats while complaining about other people taking up too much space?

Typical cyclist diversion from an OP, no one gives a **** about 4 cyclists travelling at 50-80kph on a country road, what people are giving out about is 4 cyclists going at 20-30 kph and not singling out. But sure you haven't an answer to that so let's obfuscate the OP.

I'm still waiting for your clarification on motorists moving over to allow faster cyclists to overtake, given that they are legally allowed to overtake on either side subject to proscribed legislation.

Dublin Spur

07Lapierre wrote: »

If there's an alternative, yes it is

fair enough but that can be quite subjective
I'm mainly a walker & public transport user myself but the car has it's place

Dublin Spur

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.

07Lapierre

Dublin Spur wrote: »

fair enough but that can be quote subjective
I'm mainly a walker & public transport user myself but the car has it's place

it sure does...i use mine to drive to bike races!

xckjoo

Spook_ie wrote: »

Typical cyclist diversion from an OP, no one gives a **** about 4 cyclists travelling at 50-80kph on a country road, what people are giving out about is 4 cyclists going at 20-30 kph and not singling out. But sure you haven't an answer to that so let's obfuscate the OP.

You've been given the answer to this multiple times. It's a safety thing. People aren't obliged to increase their risk of serious injury so that you can get somewhere 5s faster.

Dublin Spur

07Lapierre wrote: »

it sure does...i use mine to drive to bike races!

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.

amcalester

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.

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.

Spook_ie

xckjoo wrote: »

You've been given the answer to this multiple times. It's a safety thing. People aren't obliged to increase their risk of serious injury so that you can get somewhere 5s faster.

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!

amcalester

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=

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.

And yet, motorists who don't see both sides seem to think they are right and the (better informed) cyclist is wrong.

Funny that:rolleyes:

irishrover99

If you are driving your car and you see cyclists two abreast, take out your phone and record it.
Don'y worry, you are not breaking the law.

Dublin Spur

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

amcalester

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!

Safest way to travel that road is side by side, there's a long straight stretch after the bends so as long as there is no on-coming traffic it is easy to overtake.

If there is on-coming traffic then it just it isn't safe to overtake any cyclist, cycling side by side reinforces this to the motorist behind.

xckjoo

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!

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?

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.

Weepsie

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?

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.

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?