Should cycling two abreast be allowed?

thebaz

as a cyclist and motorist - answer No - but i think all Motorist should be forced to cycle for 2 weeks to get a perspective from a cyclist point of view - sadly in the city with more people, cars and more cyclists are roads simply can't cope and are not designed for new increase - so to anwser question No, but some motorists need to wake up and accept cyclists have rights too.

AndrewJRenko

the_pen_turner wrote: »

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

Do you cycle much in groups?

no never. what diference does that make

Do you think maybe you should listen to the experiences of those who do?

the_pen_turner

RacoonQueen wrote: »

Piss of *some* drivers. Most drivers have absolutely no issue with cyclists riding two abreast.

it pisses of almost all drivers.

i dont mind 2 abreast on roads that are wide enogh to do it safely and not hold anyone up

the_pen_turner

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

Do you think maybe you should listen to the experiences of those who do?

i can give my opinion from my perspective. its just as valid

Fighting Tao

the_pen_turner wrote: »

everyone on all sides does stupid and dangerous things.

i dont think 2 abreast helps. all it does is piss off drivers and if you have one of stupid ones behind they will overtake anyway.

i would much rather be cycling closer to the ditch than 2 abreast when someone comes around a bend in the middle of the road etc.

You experience is from the driving seat. Mine is from the driving seat and saddle. I can say from my experience that is is far safer. Come out on a bike some day and you’ll have your eyes opened.

Wombatman

pwurple wrote: »

What a demented poll.

So the proposal is that I should not be allowed cycle beside my 7 year old, I have to go behind them?

Did the OP not cycle to school at any point?

Sure did. Why do you need to go beside them?

the_pen_turner

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

No, it's not.

of course you can. most overtakes on narrow raods are only a foot between the mirrors. thats 2 feet between the bodies

obviously you not going very fast .

Sam Hain

pwurple wrote: »

What a demented poll.

So the proposal is that I should not be allowed cycle beside my 7 year old, I have to go behind them?

Did the OP not cycle to school at any point?

You're just mad.

f@steddie

the_pen_turner wrote: »

im not saying its ilegal. it is legal
but it is stupid, dangerous and selfish on narrow roads.

It's not stupid. It's self preservation. Cycle single file and motorists will attempt unsafe passing maneuvers.

How is it dangerous?

It's not selfish if cyclists drop back to single file at opportune moments to let other vehicles past if there is a large backlog of traffic.

RacoonQueen

the_pen_turner wrote: »

it pisses of almost all drivers.

i dont mind 2 abreast on roads that are wide enogh to do it safely and not hold anyone up

No it doesn't piss off almost all drivers. It pisses off a minority of poor drivers who have no concept of safe driving, patience or sharing the road.



It would be extremely rare for me when either driving or cycling to be annoyed by or held up by a cyclist. However, I am constantly being held up by and irritated by other drivers and their poor driving behaviour.

Generally drivers who don't see the poor behaviour or other drivers don't see it because they behave the exact same, selfish, self entitled way on the roads themselves, so don't see the errors of the other drivers who also behave that way.

Weepsie

meeeeh wrote: »

But the question was should two abreast be allowed. Why is Ireland so different than countries where it is not allowed. As it happens the cycling facilities in Ireland are poor and the numbers of people cycling are pretty low and yet it seems that every cycling forum activist thinks how things are done here is superior to Central Europe with 1000s of km of dedicated cycling paths and fairly strict rules how to behave on roads (including not cycling drunk, using cycle paths or obeying red lights). I don't know maybe they have it wrong and the wild west type traffic in Dublin is what we should all strive to.

France, Italy, Spain, Netherlands, Portugal, Ireland, United Kingdom are just some of the countries where it is legal. Cycling is also on the rise in Ireland and will continue to do so.

There are far better enforcement of road traffic laws in Germany and far greater respect of other road users by drivers (in my experience). I would adopt their laws for bike lights as a minimum for example.

Also, if you provide 1000s of kms od dedicated cycle tracks, you offer a safe, and viable alternative to open roads. Here, it's pretty much the only option.

the_pen_turner

f@steddie wrote: »

It's not stupid. It's self preservation. Cycle single file and motorists will attempt unsafe passing maneuvers. those lunatics will do it either way

How is it dangerous? putting yourself closer to the danger

It's not selfish if cyclists drop back to single file at opportune moments to let other vehicles past if there is a large backlog of traffic.

thats all anyone is asking for. same as any other road user should . move over or pull in if your holding up traffic. i do it all the time in our tractor or if im pulling a trailer etc.

the_pen_turner

RacoonQueen wrote: »

No it doesn't piss off almost all drivers. It pisses off a minority of poor drivers who have no concept of safe driving, patience or sharing the road. i would guestimate that 95% of people i know complain regularly about cyclists.



It would be extremely rare for me when either driving or cycling to be annoyed by or held up by a cyclist. However, I am constantly being held up by and irritated by other drivers and their poor driving behaviour.

Generally drivers who don't see the poor behaviour or other drivers don't see it because they behave the exact same, selfish, self entitled way on the roads themselves, so don't see the errors of the other drivers who also behave that way.

i would agree with you in general though

meeeeh

Hurrache wrote: »

List all the countries where it's not allowed (not Germany) which proves the fact that Ireland is an outlier on this.

And you'll get bonus points if you find one cycling advocate who claims Ireland do things better than Europe when it comes to how to do all things cycling. You'll find it's quite the opposite.

So if things are better elsewhere why the air of superiority in this thread when alternative view is put forward. the one that is used in countries with better cycling tradition.

Central Europe is mostly like that (Slovenia and Italy I know for sure, I'm pretty certain for Austria, they all more or less copy Germans). I would have to look up individual codes and I don't have time for that but you can prove me wrong if you want to. Most traffic rules are based on Vienna Convention and that one is advocating single file.

xckjoo

I'm a lone cyclist so the two abreast thing doesn't effect me but it can be dangerous giving up your position on the road on a bike in general. The first car or two that pass usually give you plenty space, but by car three you're getting squeezed into the ditch. I've given up trying to be generous with letting people pass. Not worth getting myself killed over.

AndrewJRenko

the_pen_turner wrote: »

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

Do you think maybe you should listen to the experiences of those who do?

i can give my opinion from my perspective. its just as valid

I can give opinions on how doctors should do brain surgery from my perspective. It's just as valid as a consultant surgeon who has spent 30 years studying and practicing, right?

Hurrache

meeeeh wrote: »

So if things are better elsewhere why the air of superiority in this thread when alternative view is put forward. the one that is used in countries with better cycling tradition.

What alternative?

And how's that list coming on detailing how all the countries in Europe do the 2 abreast thing differently which backs up your claim that we're at odds? It's not up to me to prove you wrong, it's up to you to back up your assertions that you're using to beat cyclists with. If you can't, any argument you have falls down around your ankles.

Sam Hain

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

I can give opinions on how doctors should do brain surgery from my perspective. It's just as valid as a consultant surgeon who has spent 30 years studying and practicing, right?

Haha, wow, what an over the top comparison, get a grip

AndrewJRenko

Wombatman wrote: »

pwurple wrote: »

What a demented poll.

So the proposal is that I should not be allowed cycle beside my 7 year old, I have to go behind them?

Did the OP not cycle to school at any point?

Sure did. Why do you need to go beside them?

To protect your child from being run down by some impatient self-entitled idiot who reckons that his journey is more important than anyone else's.

the_pen_turner

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

I can give opinions on how doctors should do brain surgery from my perspective. It's just as valid as a consultant surgeon who has spent 30 years studying and practicing, right?

thats complaetely diferent.


we are both entitled to be on the road and are just as equel as each other.
you are giving your perspective fro the cyclists view point. me from a motorists view point.

the_pen_turner

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

To protect your child from being run down by some impatient self-entitled idiot who reckons that his journey is more important than anyone else's.

what control have you either way.
the kind of terible driver that would do that is going to do it whether you are single file or 2 a breast.

selwyn froggitt

Want to kill someone and get away with it in Ireland?

No problem. Just get in your car / truck / bus and run over a cyclist.

"Sorry Guard, I didn't see them". "That's all right driver. don't do it again"

Wombatman

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

To protect your child from being run down by some impatient self-entitled idiot who reckons that his journey is more important than anyone else's.

I wouldn't let my child cycle on dangerous roads full stop. Some people will go to great lengths to make their point.

Fighting Tao

the_pen_turner wrote: »

thats complaetely diferent.


we are both entitled to be on the road and are just as equel as each other.
you are giving your perspective fro the cyclists view point. me from a motorists view point.

I gave the perspective of both. You ignored it.

the_pen_turner

Fighting Tao wrote: »

I gave the perspective of both. You ignored it.

im not ignoring it . i just dont agree.

Fighting Tao

Wombatman wrote: »

I wouldn't let my child cycle on dangerous roads full stop. Some people will go to great lengths to make their point.

Why are the roads dangerous? Because of the cyclists?

Fighting Tao

the_pen_turner wrote: »

im not ignoring it . i just dont agree.

So you are unwilling to experience it in order to form an educated opinion.

Sam Hain

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

To protect your child from being run down by some impatient self-entitled idiot who reckons that his journey is more important than anyone else's.

do you drive?

Hurrache

Wombatman wrote: »

I wouldn't let my child cycle on dangerous roads full stop.

If only there was a way to make our roads safer for cyclists of all ages.

AndrewJRenko

Sam Hain wrote: »

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

I can give opinions on how doctors should do brain surgery from my perspective. It's just as valid as a consultant surgeon who has spent 30 years studying and practicing, right?

Haha, wow, what an over the top comparison, get a grip

You're right it is completely over the top - but you got my point, right? It's just a little bit strange for someone who never cycles in groups to be lecturing others about the safety aspects of cycling in groups.

AndrewJRenko

Sam Hain wrote: »

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

To protect your child from being run down by some impatient self-entitled idiot who reckons that his journey is more important than anyone else's.

do you drive?

Yes, like most cyclists, I drive.

AndrewJRenko

the_pen_turner wrote: »

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

I can give opinions on how doctors should do brain surgery from my perspective. It's just as valid as a consultant surgeon who has spent 30 years studying and practicing, right?

thats complaetely diferent.


we are both entitled to be on the road and are just as equel as each other.
you are giving your perspective fro the cyclists view point. me from a motorists view point.

And from a motorists point of view, are you confident of your depth of understanding of the safety issues involved.

AndrewJRenko

Wombatman wrote: »

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

To protect your child from being run down by some impatient self-entitled idiot who reckons that his journey is more important than anyone else's.

I wouldn't let my child cycle on dangerous roads full stop. Some people will go to great lengths to make their point.

Roads aren't dangerous. Idiot drivers are dangerous.

the_pen_turner

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

And from a motorists point of view, are you confident of your depth of understanding of the safety issues involved.

the same applies to all road users.
dont do anything that will endanger yourself or others

AndrewJRenko

the_pen_turner wrote: »

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

To protect your child from being run down by some impatient self-entitled idiot who reckons that his journey is more important than anyone else's.

what control have you either way.
the kind of terible driver that would do that is going to do it whether you are single file or 2 a breast.

That kind of terrible driver could also do it when you're walking on the path, or indeed when you're in a car (where far more children die).

Cycling is not a hazardous activity.

AndrewJRenko

the_pen_turner wrote: »

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

And from a motorists point of view, are you confident of your depth of understanding of the safety issues involved.

the same applies to all road users.
dont do anything that will endanger yourself or others

You've pretty much proved my point beautifully there, given your lack of understanding of how two abreast deters dangerous overtakes.

the_pen_turner

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

You've pretty much proved my point beautifully there, given your lack of understanding of how two abreast deters dangerous overtakes.

you havnt explained even one way it makes it safer.

the lunaic will still squeeze past. the good driver will still wait.
all you are doing is putting yourself closer to the danger

Sam Hain

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

Roads aren't dangerous. Idiot drivers are dangerous.

And idiot cyclists.

the_pen_turner

Sam Hain wrote: »

And idiot cyclists.

there are idiots in all forms of transport

Don't Chute!

the_pen_turner wrote: »

you havnt explained even one way it makes it safer.

the lunaic will still squeeze past. the good driver will still wait.
all you are doing is putting yourself closer to the danger

It's been explained to you and others over and over and over again. You just don't/won't understand it.

the_pen_turner

Don't Chute! wrote: »

It's been explained to you and others over and over and over again. You just don't/won't understand it.

i understand your agument its just that i dont believe it.

mybe its you and others that wont understand.

flatface

Here is another image explaining it. If you follow the logic it explains why it is considered safest practice.



The image in point 1 is the one to consider. As a cyclist you want to avoid someone squeezing in between you and oncoming traffic. It is properly scary especially at speed, the only thing you can do to avoid it is to adjust your road position to try to remove the temptation to just gun it through the space. Encourage the motorist to slow down to your pace, then overtake properly and safely.

It seems to me anyone arguing that cycling 2 abreast is wrong/dangerous is saying "I want to be able to squeeze past cyclists on the road, without having to cross into the right side of the road so its easier for me." despite this being unsafe to the cyclist.

Thankfully the experience is rare as most motorists treat other road users with care and space, but if you had ever experienced a close dangerous pass, I would think your perspective would be entirely different.

meeeeh

Hurrache wrote: »

What alternative?

And how's that list coming on detailing how all the countries in Europe do the 2 abreast thing differently which backs up your claim that we're at odds? It's not up to me to prove you wrong, it's up to you to back up your assertions that you're using to beat cyclists with. If you can't, any argument you have falls down around your ankles.

Firstly I never said all. I listed three countries, two of them with much superior cycling infrastructure. France has the same rule, even Netherlands allows two abreast only providing you are not impeding other road users. I'm not going to google individual statue books of other European countries and if that makes my argument worthless then fine. The truth is that most cycling ideas and arguments in Ireland come from one of the fattest countries in Europe (UK) and other English speaking countries around the world. At stretch people will look at Holland because most of them speak English too. Whatever everybody else is doing must be wrong because it's not in English.

Fighting Tao

the_pen_turner wrote: »

i understand your agument its just that i dont believe it.

mybe its you and others that wont understand.

You don’t help yourself though. You are too cosy wrapped up in your own beliefs that you can’t face that you will be proven wrong. Get yourself on a bike on these roads you are telling us about and you will learn the truth.

the_pen_turner

flatface wrote: »

Here is another image explaining it. If you follow the logic it explains why it is considered safest practice.



The image in point 1 is the one to consider. As a cyclist you want to avoid someone squeezing in between you and oncoming traffic. It is properly scary especially at speed, the only thing you can do to avoid it is to adjust your road position to try to remove the temptation to just gun it through the space. Encourage the motorist to slow down to your pace, then overtake properly and safely.the type of driver that would do that will still do it

It seems to me anyone arguing that cycling 2 abreast is wrong/dangerous is saying "I want to be able to squeeze past cyclists on the road, without having to cross into the right side of the road so its easier for me." despite this being unsafe to the cyclist. no one is saying that

Thankfully the experience is rare as most motorists treat other road users with care and space, but if you had ever experienced a close dangerous pass, I would think your perspective would be entirely different 2 a breast wont stop someone driving close to you.

a good driver will still overtake safely. a bad one wont

the_pen_turner

Fighting Tao wrote: »

You don’t help yourself though. You are too cosy wrapped up in your own beliefs that you can’t face that you will be proven wrong. Get yourself on a bike on these roads you are telling us about and you will learn the truth.

i undertand the risks and see drivers overtaking cylists dangerously all the time.
me being on a bike wont change my view.

my view is that bad drivers will still be bad and good will be good. riding 2 a brest wont change that

Pinch Flat

Fighting Tao wrote: »

You don’t help yourself though. You are too cosy wrapped up in your own beliefs that you can’t face that you will be proven wrong. Get yourself on a bike on these roads you are telling us about and you will learn the truth.

Saying it for ages. Spend 6 months on a bike before you graduate to a car. The roads would be a different place. It's people who can't see the more vulnerable users that tare hard to reason with. Cars create a little isolated bubble of selfishness.

Fighting Tao

the_pen_turner wrote: »

i undertand the risks and see drivers overtaking cylists dangerously all the time.
me being on a bike wont change my view.

my view is that bad drivers will still be bad and good will be good. riding 2 a brest wont change that

I’m not afraid of the good drivers. They wait patiently until it is safe to over take. I fear the bad ones that don’t and they make up a significant portion of all drivers. When with others, two abreast protects me from them.

Fighting Tao

Pinch Flat wrote: »

Saying it for ages. Spend 6 months on a bike before you graduate to a car. The roads would be a different place. It's people who can't see the more vulnerable users that tare hard to reason with. Cars create a little isolated bubble of selfishness.

I’ve said that many times myself. Even a month would make a huge difference.

the_pen_turner

Pinch Flat wrote: »

Saying it for ages. Spend 6 months on a bike before you graduate to a car. The roads would be a different place. It's people who can't see the more vulnerable users that tare hard to reason with. Cars create a little isolated bubble of selfishness.

i agree with you . but should add that cyclist should have driven a car too . along with car drivers driving a tractor or truck.