Should cycling two abreast be allowed?

Weepsie

Graces7 wrote: »

It gets risky on narrow winding rural lanes. You drive even slowly round a bend and two abreast is chancy. Most single out thankfully, On many lanes even one means doodling behind him and if uphlll..

So no.. single file please at least on narrow rural lanes

Yet narrow rural lanes can accommodate two way vehicular traffic no problem as far as most people are concerned.

Mad that, 2 people side by side on a bike which take up less space than the width of your average car is somehow an issue.


And it would be great if people did drive "even slowly" around bends, but that's more fanciful than thinking cycling 2 abreast is a problem

Graces7

Weepsie wrote: »

Yet narrow rural lanes can accommodate two way vehicular traffic no problem as far as most people are concerned.

Mad that, 2 people side by side on a bike which take up less space than the width of your average car is somehow an issue.

Not sure what point you are making? There is an issue of speed. A brace of cyclists pedalling uphill ? Who perforce are having to stand to pedal etc .

This is a simple courtesy issue surely? There is no need to travel 2 abreast . And a safety issue. We were taught as young cyclists to single out if there was a car behind.

PS I do drive slowly and carefully ! Always but cyclists are slow ,, nb I have no issue as such with cyclists

meeeeh

I come from a country with way superior cycling infrastructure. Cycling two abreast is illegal except in certain circumstances. Anyway Eu have this to say:

In principle, cyclists may not ride more than one abreast. Some countries however introduced exceptions to this rule; for instance, cyclists may ride two abreast where the carriageway is wide enough, where cycle traffic is heavy, on cycle tracks, etc.

https://ec.europa.eu/transport/road_safety/specialist/knowledge/pedestrians/special_regulations_for_pedestrians_and_cyclists/traffic_rules_and_regulations_for_cyclists_and_their_vehicles_en

I think we need better cycling infrastructure with cycle lanes. When then two abreast cyclists on cycle lanes block other faster cyclists getting by there will be soon calls to change the rules.

Seth Brundle

Graces7 wrote: »

Not sure what point you are making? There is an issue of speed. A brace of cyclists pedalling uphill ? Who perforce are having to stand to pedal etc .

This is a simple courtesy issue surely? There is no need to travel 2 abreast . And a safety issue. We were taught as young cyclists to single out if there was a car behind.

PS I do drive slowly and carefully ! Always but cyclists are slow ,, nb I have no issue as such with cyclists

It's either safe to overtake or it's not. If you meet a car what will you do?
The cyclists aren't the problem. Arrogant and impatient drivers are the problem.

Wombatman

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

Maybe it's just pay back for all the cars that jam up the roads from Monday to Friday?

Pay back? You shouldn't be allowed use the roads with the kind of two wrongs make a right revenge logic.

AndrewJRenko

meeeeh wrote: »

When then two abreast cyclists on cycle lanes block other faster cyclists getting by there will be soon calls to change the rules.

This scenario happens every day on the Grand Canal cycle track. Cyclists just wait for a safe place to pass. It's not hard really.

AndrewJRenko

Wombatman wrote: »

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

Maybe it's just pay back for all the cars that jam up the roads from Monday to Friday?

Pay back? You shouldn't be allowed use the roads with the kind of two wrongs make a right revenge logic.

People get to use the roads with all kinds of twisted logic. Some people's heads are so far up their own arses that they think that their journey is more important than anyone else's. Crazy, I know.

meeeeh

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

This scenario happens every day on the Grand Canal cycle track. Cyclists just wait for a safe place to pass. It's not hard really.

And whinge in threads in cycling forum. You need it to happen a bit more often than Grand Canal cycle track and then there will be calls for change of rules. Impeding others more than necessary is ignorant, I don't care if you are a car, tractor, cyclist or pedestrian. And the same goes for cyclist tracks or park lanes.

AndrewJRenko

Graces7 wrote: »

mikhail wrote: »

Seems like you've little enough to be worrying you. I literally can't remember the last time I met a pair of cyclists riding abreast. I'm fairly sure that I had overtaken them seconds later though.

It gets risky on narrow winding rural lanes. You drive even slowly round a bend and two abreast is chancy. Most single out thankfully, On many lanes even one means doodling behind him and if uphlll..

So no.. single file please at least on narrow rural lanes

Cycling two abreast isn't risky or chancy. Driving blind around bends is risky and chancy. There could be anything round the bend - animals, a crashed car, hillwalkers or a scout troop. You can't drive blind.

Weepsie

Graces7 wrote: »

Not sure what point you are making? There is an issue of speed. A brace of cyclists pedalling uphill ? Who perforce are having to stand to pedal etc .

This is a simple courtesy issue surely? There is no need to travel 2 abreast . And a safety issue. We were taught as young cyclists to single out if there was a car behind.

PS I do drive slowly and carefully ! Always but cyclists are slow ,, nb I have no issue as such with cyclists

My point is that 2 cyclists are occupying less space than a single vehicle, yet people have no problem sharing the road with these, overtaking them, going around bends, driving in roads in which they are coming the other direction .

Single out if it's safe to do so, by all means, but if a car can't overtake 2 abreast safely, its often the case that it can't overtake a single cyclist safely either

topper75

TCM wrote: »

Absolutely not. Two abreast usually means middle of the road with no regard for other road users. It's often "we'll show them" type of attitute.

Do you mean 'out to' the middle of the road, same as cars?
So long as they don't go over the white line they are fine.
In what way are they disregarding the other road users? I've never seen bikers go towards a pedestrian or horse at speed. I've never seen them break wing mirrors of parked vehicles. What is this disregard exactly? existing?

meeeeh

Weepsie wrote: »

My point is that 2 cyclists are occupying less space than a single vehicle, yet people have no problem sharing the road with these, overtaking them, going around bends, driving in roads in which they are coming the other direction .

Single out if it's safe to do so, by all means, but if a car can't overtake 2 abreast safely, its often the case that it can't overtake a single cyclist safely either

A car being stuck behind someone doing 15km per hour when not necessary is complete waste. Car will usually drive faster and you won't need to overtake. There is a reason tractors or bikes are not allowed on motorways and their is a reason most European countries don't encourage or allow two abreast cycling on narrow roads. But maybe we know better in a country where most kids don't cycle and the rest do it only since it's fashionable.

Seth Brundle

meeeeh wrote: »

A car being stuck behind someone doing 15km per hour when not necessary is complete waste. Car will usually drive faster and you won't need to overtake. There is a reason tractors or bikes are not allowed on motorways and their is a reason most European countries don't encourage or allow two abreast cycling on narrow roads. But maybe we know better in a country where most kids don't cycle and the rest do it only since it's fashionable.

If the car is "stuck behind" then it's not safe to overtake!
What if it was someone on a horse?

The Bishop Basher

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

People get to use the roads with all kinds of twisted logic. Some people's heads are so far up their own arses that they think that their journey is more important than anyone else's. Crazy, I know.

I know..

I meet large groups of them most weekend mornings as they trundle along at a snails pace and inconvenience every other road user behind them, just because they can.

The public road isn't a sports track and shouldn't be treated as such.

Cyclists should be banned from cycling in large groups outside of licensed events.

The Bishop Basher

Seth Brundle wrote: »

If the car is "stuck behind" then it's not safe to overtake!
What if it was someone on a horse?

I don't think i've ever seen a large group of horses blocking a road.

If I did i'd call the guards.

Seth Brundle

Rennaws wrote: »

I don't think i've ever seen a large group of horses blocking a road.

If I did i'd call the guards.

Maybe read the post I responded to which referred to a difficulty in overtaking a single cyclist.

AndrewJRenko

meeeeh wrote: »

Weepsie wrote: »

My point is that 2 cyclists are occupying less space than a single vehicle, yet people have no problem sharing the road with these, overtaking them, going around bends, driving in roads in which they are coming the other direction .

Single out if it's safe to do so, by all means, but if a car can't overtake 2 abreast safely, its often the case that it can't overtake a single cyclist safely either

A car being stuck behind someone doing 15km per hour when not necessary is complete waste.

You should tell that to the drivers of all the single occupancy cars that I passed as they crawled in traffic today. Not one pulled over to let faster cyclists through. I'm outraged Joe, outraged at the lack of courtesy shown

AndrewJRenko

Rennaws wrote: »

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

People get to use the roads with all kinds of twisted logic. Some people's heads are so far up their own arses that they think that their journey is more important than anyone else's. Crazy, I know.

I know..

I meet large groups of them most weekend mornings as they trundle along at a snails pace and inconvenience every other road user behind them, just because they can.

The public road isn't a sports track and shouldn't be treated as such.

Cyclists should be banned from cycling in large groups outside of licensed events.

I meet large groups of motorists every morning, trundling through traffic, inconveniencing every other road user behind them - many of them going to the gym of course. Imagine holding up other people to go take exercise - it's outrageous Joe.

AndrewJRenko

meeeeh wrote: »

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

This scenario happens every day on the Grand Canal cycle track. Cyclists just wait for a safe place to pass. It's not hard really.

And whinge in threads in cycling forum. You need it to happen a bit more often than Grand Canal cycle track and then there will be calls for change of rules. Impeding others more than necessary is ignorant, I don't care if you are a car, tractor, cyclist or pedestrian. And the same goes for cyclist tracks or park lanes.

Has it come up in whinge threads in the cycling forum?

It happens me every day, that I'm held up unnecessarily by cars due to poor road positioning, or just unnecessary car journeys in the first place. Where should I be whinging to get this sorted?

Sam Hain

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

Cycling two abreast isn't risky or chancy. Driving blind around bends is risky and chancy. There could be anything round the bend - animals, a crashed car, hillwalkers or a scout troop. You can't drive blind.

A scout troop, lol. As long as they are not two abreast.

meeeeh

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

Has it come up in whinge threads in the cycling forum?

It happens me every day, that I'm held up unnecessarily by cars due to poor road positioning, or just unnecessary car journeys in the first place. Where should I be whinging to get this sorted?

I'm sure you can overtake when it's safe to do so. If it's not, the car has just as much right to be there. Using your logic there is nothing to complain about.

Anyway nobody answer why attitude here is so superior to the rules of the road around rest of Europe (excluding countries where cycling is almost main mode of transport and no Ireland isn't one of them).

f@steddie

Should cars be allowed? If everyone rode motor bikes there would be less traffic congestion and more space for passing. Cars cause traffic. Without cars I would be able to get to where I'm going much quicker. Kids should learn to ride a motor bike as soon as possible.

I am very important and have places to get to.

MaryBrosnan

Several estates have their children driving scramblers.

AndrewJRenko

Sam Hain wrote: »

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

Cycling two abreast isn't risky or chancy. Driving blind around bends is risky and chancy. There could be anything round the bend - animals, a crashed car, hillwalkers or a scout troop. You can't drive blind.

A scout troop, lol. As long as they are not two abreast.

Why the Lols? Lots of cubs and scouts hike on road for parts of a hike

AndrewJRenko

meeeeh wrote: »

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

Has it come up in whinge threads in the cycling forum?

It happens me every day, that I'm held up unnecessarily by cars due to poor road positioning, or just unnecessary car journeys in the first place. Where should I be whinging to get this sorted?

I'm sure you can overtake when it's safe to do so. If it's not, the car has just as much right to be there. Using your logic there is nothing to complain about.

So there's nothing to complain about for drivers or cyclists then?

meeeeh

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

So there's nothing to complain about for drivers or cyclists then?

Not according to you. All is fine, everyone has a right to be there and block everyone else. You can overtake when it's safe to do so.

In my opinion ignorant driving is just as bad as ignorant cycling but that is just me.

MaryBrosnan

MaryBrosnan wrote: »

Several estates have their children driving scramblers.

And how is that pertinent to the discussion, do they move in formation?

Graces7

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

Cycling two abreast isn't risky or chancy. Driving blind around bends is risky and chancy. There could be anything round the bend - animals, a crashed car, hillwalkers or a scout troop. You can't drive blind.

So what? periscopes? To see round the bend?

Drive with care and respect for other road users. Cycle with care and respect for other road users. There is absolutely no need for cyclists to be two abreast. no reasonable need that is.

Over and out :eek::p:D

MaryBrosnan

Deleted User wrote: »

And how is that pertinent to the discussion, do they move in formation?

It was apropos to the previous posters imputation.

Weepsie

Graces7 wrote: »

There is absolutely no need for cyclists to be two abreast. no reasonable need that is.

It's considered safer for the cyclists. Takes longer to over take 2 in single file than 2 abreast. You know this. Being willfully ignorant is no excuse

Hurrache

Rennaws wrote: »

I know..

I meet large groups of them most weekend mornings as they trundle along at a snails pace and inconvenience every other road user behind them, just because they can.

The public road isn't a sports track and shouldn't be treated as such.

Cyclists should be banned from cycling in large groups outside of licensed events.

I'm really amazed at all these made up stories, must be something in the water that causes some sort of mass hallucinations.

I live on one of these strange roads that is used by a lot of cyclists out for group and individual rides and in all my years I've never been inconvenienced.

I guess it's probably down to the fact that I know how to drive.

meeeeh

Weepsie wrote: »

It's considered safer for the cyclists. Takes longer to over take 2 in single file than 2 abreast. You know this. Being willfully ignorant is no excuse

Why is it not considered safer in Germany for example? Is Germany especially hostile to cycling?

Weepsie

meeeeh wrote: »

Not according to you. All is fine, everyone has a right to be there and block everyone else. You can overtake when it's safe to do so.

In my opinion ignorant driving is just as bad as ignorant cycling but that is just me.

It's not blocking. It's called traffic. People drive in incredibly slow moving, endless lines of the stuff daily and get on with it. They happen upon some cyclists every so often and they tie themselves up in knots with the indecency of it all. How rude they are to be out on the public roads holding us up.

Cycling 2 abreast is the precise opposite of ignorant, as in most conditions on open roads it's the safest way to do so.

meeeeh

Weepsie wrote: »

It's not blocking. It's called traffic. People drive in incredibly slow moving, endless lines of the stuff daily and get on with it. They happen upon some cyclists every so often and they tie themselves up in knots with the indecency of it all. How rude they are to be out on the public roads holding us up.

Cycling 2 abreast is the precise opposite of ignorant, as in most conditions on open roads it's the safest way to do so.

Again is Vienna Convention then wrong stating that you should cycle one abreast unless...

https://ec.europa.eu/transport/road_safety/specialist/knowledge/pedestrians/special_regulations_for_pedestrians_and_cyclists/traffic_rules_and_regulations_for_cyclists_and_their_vehicles_en

the_pen_turner

Weepsie wrote: »

My point is that 2 cyclists are occupying less space than a single vehicle, yet people have no problem sharing the road with these, overtaking them, going around bends, driving in roads in which they are coming the other direction .

Single out if it's safe to do so, by all means, but if a car can't overtake 2 abreast safely, its often the case that it can't overtake a single cyclist safely either

thats complete rubbish. my small van is 7 feet including the mirrors. all other cars i googled were around that or less.

a cyclist is roughly 2 foot 6 wide . allow a foot between them and ditch and foot between them and you are the same as my van.

the diference is that i can overtake a vehicle allowing 1 foot between us and its fairly safe but cannot for a cyclist (safely and legally)

there are lots of roads you couldnt over take 2 cyclists without hitting the ditch on the other side.

cycle single file and you would only be 4 foot wide . that leave loads of room to overtake safely with a nice large gap between both

2 a breast is fine on large open roads but not on narrow roads where its could be a mile before you get to an overtaking place.

AndrewJRenko

meeeeh wrote: »

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

So there's nothing to complain about for drivers or cyclists then?

Not according to you. All is fine, everyone has a right to be there and block everyone else. You can overtake when it's safe to do so.

In my opinion ignorant driving is just as bad as ignorant cycling but that is just me.

So do move over for faster cyclists in heavy urban traffic?

Weepsie

Has the convention been update since 1968? As Irish Statue book updated in 2012, says 2 abreast is perfectly fine and legal. That's all I need to refer to.

Vienna convention also enshrines the point that a bicycle has every much as right to the road as a car, but that bit carefully gets glossed over.

The Bishop Basher

meeeeh wrote: »

Again is Vienna Convention then wrong stating that you should cycle one abreast unless...

They claim the Gardai are wrong too..

http://www.stickybottle.com/latest-news/garda-traffic-chief-warns-groups-cycling-two-abreast/

in fact everyone is wrong bar cyclists on boards.

It was ever thus.. :rolleyes:

Pinch Flat

I can see how talking while cycling two abreast can wind up a few motorists. Our club has developed a means of communication based on facial twitches and hand signals that cuts this out.

Hurrache

Rennaws wrote: »

They claim the Gardai are wrong too..

http://www.stickybottle.com/latest-news/garda-traffic-chief-warns-groups-cycling-two-abreast/

in fact everyone is wrong bar cyclists on boards.

It was ever thus.. :rolleyes:

It wouldn't be the first time a garda made comments contrary to road traffic laws.

Fighting Tao

the_pen_turner wrote: »

thats complete rubbish. my small van is 7 feet including the mirrors. all other cars i googled were around that or less.

a cyclist is roughly 2 foot 6 wide . allow a foot between them and ditch and foot between them and you are the same as my van.

the diference is that i can overtake a vehicle allowing 1 foot between us and its fairly safe but cannot for a cyclist (safely and legally)

there are lots of roads you couldnt over take 2 cyclists without hitting the ditch on the other side.

cycle single file and you would only be 4 foot wide . that leave loads of room to overtake safely with a nice large gap between both

2 a breast is fine on large open roads but not on narrow roads where its could be a mile before you get to an overtaking place.

You lost me and your argument at the bolded bit. Are you really saying that all people on bikes are the size of Andre the Giant?

My bars are 44cm wide and my shoulders are only a few centimetres wider than that. I’m a big guy compared to most people on bikes. 44cm is less than 1’6” wide.

Weepsie

the_pen_turner wrote: »

thats complete rubbish. my small van is 7 feet including the mirrors. all other cars i googled were around that or less.

a cyclist is roughly 2 foot 6 wide . allow a foot between them and ditch and foot between them and you are the same as my van.

the diference is that i can overtake a vehicle allowing 1 foot between us and its fairly safe but cannot for a cyclist (safely and legally)

there are lots of roads you couldnt over take 2 cyclists without hitting the ditch on the other side.

cycle single file and you would only be 4 foot wide . that leave loads of room to overtake safely with a nice large gap between both

2 a breast is fine on large open roads but not on narrow roads where its could be a mile before you get to an overtaking place.

Then you should wait the mile. If you can't overtake 2 cyclists, it's not any safer to overtake a single one.

That's some pretty wild guesstimation there. Most road bikes are 42-44 cm at their widest. That's 1'3"/ Hybrids and mountain bikes are maybe 60 cm so under 2 ft.

They take up absolutely no more space than the width of a car, unless it's a very, very small car

meeeeh

Weepsie wrote: »

Has the convention been update since 1968? As Irish Statue book updated in 2012, says 2 abreast is perfectly fine and legal. That's all I need to refer to.

Vienna convention also enshrines the point that a bicycle has every much as right to the road as a car, but that bit carefully gets glossed over.

Having just as much right on certain roads. Anyway you didn't answer if Germany is especially dangerous for cyclists since driving two abreast is not legal most of the time.

Btw the question in the op was should it be legal in Ireland not if it is legal?

Weepsie

Rennaws wrote: »

They claim the Gardai are wrong too..

http://www.stickybottle.com/latest-news/garda-traffic-chief-warns-groups-cycling-two-abreast/

in fact everyone is wrong bar cyclists on boards.

It was ever thus.. :rolleyes:

Gardai are not the Road Traffic Act.

f@steddie

Rennaws wrote: »

I know..

I meet large groups of them most weekend mornings as they trundle along at a snails pace and inconvenience every other road user behind them, just because they can.

The public road isn't a sports track and shouldn't be treated as such.

Cyclists should be banned from cycling in large groups outside of licensed events.

I meet large groups of cars most weekday mornings as they trundle along at a snails pace and inconvenience every other road user behind them, just because they can.

Cars should be banned from driving in the city except outside of peak traffic hours.

Weepsie

meeeeh wrote: »

Having just as much right on certain roads. Anyway you didn't answer if Germany is especially dangerous for cyclists since driving two abreast is not legal most of the time.

Btw the question in the op was should it be legal in Ireland not if it is legal?

Then yes it should be absolutely legal. That standard of driving here is pretty crap, and there are far, far bigger issues than cyclists being 2 abreast on our roads.

Energy consumption, environmental damage, societal health issues, deaths caused by vehicular accidents are all far bigger problems.

Fighting Tao

meeeeh wrote: »

Having just as much right on certain roads. Anyway you didn't answer if Germany is especially dangerous for cyclists since driving two abreast is not legal most of the time.

Btw the question in the op was should it be legal in Ireland not if it is legal?

But is is legal and there should be legal until otherwise. It is not likely to change anyway.

the_pen_turner

Fighting Tao wrote: »

You lost me and your argument at the bolded bit. Are you really saying that all people on bikes are the size of Andre the Giant?

My bars are 44cm wide and my shoulders are only a few centimetres wider than that. I’m a big guy compared to most people on bikes. 44cm is less than 1’6” wide.

https://www.cyclemanual.ie/manual/thebasics/width/
this calims a cyclist to be 750mm wide

Fighting Tao

f@steddie wrote: »

I meet large groups of cars most weekday mornings as they trundle along at a snails pace and inconvenience every other road user behind them, just because they can.

Cars should be banned from driving in the city outside of peak traffic hours.

This is the funny thing that people whole solely drive don’t get.

When I drive to work it takes anywhere from 30-90 minutes each way. When I cycle it’s consistently 15-18 minutes (Duration gets shorter due to fitness improving).

the_pen_turner

Weepsie wrote: »

Then you should wait the mile. If you can't overtake 2 cyclists, it's not any safer to overtake a single one.

That's some pretty wild guesstimation there. Most road bikes are 42-44 cm at their widest. That's 1'3"/ Hybrids and mountain bikes are maybe 60 cm so under 2 ft.

They take up absolutely no more space than the width of a car, unless it's a very, very small car

https://www.cyclemanual.ie/manual/thebasics/width/

only an average but it claims 750mm wide

the maths doesnt lie. 2 cyclists are clearly wider than 7 feet.