Cycling in groups

bridgetown1

32 years ago I cycled the Ring of Kerry for the first time. I have been a keen cyclist all my life (now nearing 50!!) so I am NOT a newbie weekend-bike-to-work person.

I also drive.

I recently came across a group of about 30 cyclists, cycling up to 4 abreast, between Bandon and Dunmanway. When I started my cycling way back when (late '70s) we were always told NEVER to cycle more than 2 abreast, and in traffic (or when traffic was approaching) ALWAYS cycle in single file. Also if there were 6 or more of you then split into 2 groups.

These rules seem to be non-existent now. What are the rules about cycling in groups? Are there any?

Raam

Beats me.

rp

I think 2 abreast is the law/custom; but going into single file doesn't seem sensible, as, unless the lane is something like 5m wide, a car still couldn't safely pass a single cyclist anymore than it could 2 or 4. In fact it makes it harder, cuz you are going to need a much longer clear stretch to pass them all out.

Dermot Illogical

bridgetown1 wrote: »

These rules seem to be non-existent now. What are the rules about cycling in groups? Are there any?

The rules are that seeing anyone cycling more than 2 abreast entitles you to come on here to bitch about it, making sure to establish your own cycling credentials first. :pac:

The 2 abreast rule is still there, and overtakes of a 2 abreast group must be done single file. So the widest group you should see at any one time is 3 abreast.
The rest of the rules taught to you don't exist, and had no basis in law.

Single file in traffic is only asking for some muppet in a car to do a close overtake. Some clubs/groups do it anyway. Each to their own.

Sometimes a group will be 2 abreast but will not look it. Not everyone is great at following the wheel in front and it can look a bit messy at times.

Diarmuid

bridgetown1 wrote: »

32 years ago I cycled the Ring of Kerry for the first time. I have been a keen cyclist all my life (now nearing 50!!) so I am NOT a newbie weekend-bike-to-work person.

I also drive.

Is it just me or has this forum turned into one big Groundhog Day?

Raam

Diarmuid wrote: »

Is it just me or has this forum turned into one big Groundhog Day?

Strange feeling that I've heard that before somewhere...

Dermot Illogical

Is it just me or has this forum turned into one big Groundhog Day?

Raam

RT66 wrote: »

Is it just me or has this forum turned into one big Groundhog Day?

Strange feeling that I've heard that before somewhere...

Dermot Illogical

Raam wrote: »

Strange feeling that I've heard that before somewhere...

Strange feeling that I've heard that before somewhere...

manwithaplan

You have to cycle two abreast, even when you are on your own.

Incidentally, does anyone else look up the line on a club spin, calculate who they will be paired with for a two minute chat and who they will miss and sigh inwardly? I hate being on the wrong end of this (mostly) same sex speed dating. Great to get out, isn't it...

I like to say "tidy up lads" in a serious voice when I am at the back of the bunch because it gives me an alpha male buzz. I also like to ride up to the front and say "ease up a bit, there's people being dropped" in similarly earnest tones.

Raam

"STEADY!"

Dermot Illogical

manwithaplan wrote: »

Incidentally, does anyone else look up the line on a club spin, calculate who they will be paired with for a two minute chat and who they will miss and sigh inwardly? I hate being on the wrong end of this (mostly) same sex speed dating.

Easy solution. Change sex.

Postit

bridgetown1 wrote: »

32 years ago I cycled the Ring of Kerry for the first time. I have been a keen cyclist all my life (now nearing 50!!) so I am NOT a newbie weekend-bike-to-work person.

So what?

bridgetown1 wrote: »

I also drive.

So what?

bridgetown1 wrote: »

I recently came across a group of about 30 cyclists, cycling up to 4 abreast, between Bandon and Dunmanway. When I started my cycling way back when (late '70s) we were always told NEVER to cycle more than 2 abreast, and in traffic (or when traffic was approaching) ALWAYS cycle in single file. Also if there were 6 or more of you then split into 2 groups.

These rules seem to be non-existent now. What are the rules about cycling in groups? Are there any?

The law is maximum two abreast. People break the law. Get over it!

Eamonnator

It's Deja Vu all over again!

seamus

Actually, remembering this common gripe I made a special note to observe group dynamics at the event I was at on Saturday. It was a huge group, probably pushing 100 cyclists in convoy.

From my position at the back (:pac:) it looked like just a complete mess of bikes everywhere, taking up the whole road; 3, 4, 5 abreast, just mucking in anywhere.
But as I took the opportunity for closer look, moving forwards and backwards through the group, I realised that in fact there were very few people riding 3 abreast, if any. In most cases they were riding two abreast, the odd time a 3 abreast might occur when someone was falling back or overtaking.

However, the reason that they looked like 3 or 4 abreast was because the line wasn't neat. In some cases the guys were cycling right beside eachother, in other cases they were riding with 1.5 metres between them, effectively hogging the whole lane.

From behind, this looked like 3 or 4 abreast, when in basically all cases it was 2 abreast. In fact from what I could tell, people were actively avoiding riding 3 abreast - not because they thought they should, but because riding with 3 bikes in a 2.5 metre wide lane at 35km/h is quite uncomfortable with little room for error. Any time a rider turned a twosome into a threesome, someone would move forward or back to give themselves more room, and the three-abreast position was abandoned.

Beasty

A quick search using the term "abreast" reveals 402 "hits" in the Cycling forum (Dang it, it's probably 403 now!).

That's a pair of "abreasts" every 160 threads or so.

Of course some of those references may be typos ...;)

Lusk Doyle

Postit wrote: »

The law is maximum two abreast. People break the law. Get over it!

But don't go over the continuous white line :eek:

Morrisseeee

Riding 2 abreast is grand until Kate from Midleton arrives, then all hell breaks loose :rolleyes::pac:

Riding 2 abreast is grand until you hit Allihies or the Tim Healy Pass !! :eek:
/personal experience at the weekend

ROK ON

There is something beautiful about a well functioning line and something oddly satisfying about riding shoulder to shoulder with other cyclists.
It is the potential latent domino effect if it goes awry makes it so gorgeous.

chakattack

ROK ON wrote: »

There is something beautiful about a well functioning line and something oddly satisfying about riding shoulder to shoulder with other cyclists.
It is the potential latent domino effect if it goes awry makes it so gorgeous.

Did you get head hunted by Rapha?

horse7

The packs generally have their own rules,eg five abreast,through the red lights etc, and what they say goes ,as you will find out as you voice your advise here or in traffic.

Dermot Illogical

horse7 wrote: »

The packs generally have their own rules,eg five abreast,through the red lights etc, and what they say goes ,as you will find out as you voice your advise here or in traffic.

You forgot to mention footpads.

Tenzor07

Some people just have a huge problem with cyclists on the road, even in single file!

t'bear

WTF was that, I would have unclipped / discounted and chucked the bike through that car window!

seamus

Tenzor07 wrote: »

Some people just have a huge problem with cyclists on the road, even in single file!

There's no accounting for morons and scumbags tbh.

Tenzor07

Best thing to do would be to stop and let the lunatic by, who knows what's going on in his head...though I would have called his reg in to the Gards, though unless there is a squad car nearby the chances of anything happening would be remote at best :-\

Iwernia

Maybe they dropped something further back.

Cookie_Monster

if you ride your bike sideways you can all be abreast of each other without an issue

smacl

seamus wrote: »

There's no accounting for morons and scumbags tbh.

Yup. Had a bottle thrown at me by one such charmer from the back of a car going up Kilmac a few weeks back. Probably should have called the Gardai, but wasn't together enough to think about it in time. Going up the Military road a couple of days later, and saw a rather dodgy bunch lads in hoodies coming my way, which I managed to avoid with no more than a bit of lip thrown. A bit further up the Gards had another couple of them and a couple cars I'm guessing they'd nicked. Nice long walk back for them, although the rain was just starting to set in. Wonder if they made it home before dark?

Lusk Doyle

I've noticed something recently.

Why is it that when a person who is travelling in a car encounters a large number of cyclists or indeed a small number of cyclists who are also travelling in the same direction and are either tightly packed together or strewn along the road, refers to them not as traffic but as a bunch or group of cyclists blocking the road, etc and in doing so is IMO thereby applying an implication that they are road users of less worth and are an obstruction to be overcome / a danger...?

Why are motorised vehicles only considered traffic by these sages?

Lumen

Lusk Doyle wrote: »

Why are motorised vehicles only considered traffic by these sages?

Because the damn cyclists don't pay road tax!

rp

smacl wrote: »

Yup. Had a bottle thrown at me by one such charmer from the back of a car going up Kilmac a few weeks back.

That's nothing. I had a used baby-wipe come out of a passing car window last night: lodged on my handlebars. Still, could have been worse and hit me higher up. I had my mouth open and everything.

The Bishop Basher

Lusk Doyle wrote: »

I've noticed something recently.

Why is it that when a person who is travelling in a car encounters a large number of cyclists or indeed a small number of cyclists who are also travelling in the same direction and are either tightly packed together or strewn along the road, refers to them not as traffic but as a bunch or group of cyclists blocking the road, etc and in doing so is IMO thereby applying an implication that they are road users of less worth and are an obstruction to be overcome / a danger...?

Why are motorised vehicles only considered traffic by these sages?

I would hazard a guess that it's down to the speed at which cyclists are travelling. By their very nature they are automatically blocking the road when taking up the lane, as they regularly do. Real traffic is travelling faster therefore any kind of hold up is considered a block because, well, it is !! Tractors are no different.

Lusk Doyle

Real traffic? Seriously?

Icyseanfitz

Swanner wrote: »

I would hazard a guess that it's down to the speed at which cyclists are travelling. By their very nature they are automatically blocking the road when taking up the lane, as they regularly do. Real traffic is travelling faster therefore any kind of hold up is considered a block because, well, it is !! Tractors are no different.

considering a lot of people can ride between 25-30 kph on the flat id have to disagree, if was traveling at that speed in "traffic" id be over the moon, cyclist take up a defensive position on the road so morons wont smush them, same with guys on motor cycles

The Bishop Basher

Icyseanfitz wrote: »

considering a lot of people can ride between 25-30 kph on the flat id have to disagree, if was traveling at that speed in "traffic" id be over the moon, cyclist take up a defensive position on the road so morons wont smush them, same with guys on motor cycles

In traffic yes but the tone of the thread suggest cyclists on an open road and that's what I was responding to. While your trundling along at your 30kph, traffic is moving at between 70kph and 100 kph. If, by your own admission, you are taking up a "defensive" position then you are blocking the traffic behind you. Even in an urban situation most traffic is moving faster then 30kph and once again you are blocking the traffic behind you. Either way, you're holding up people on their commute which is frustrating.

The Bishop Basher

Lusk Doyle wrote: »

Real traffic? Seriously?

Yes really. Not sure I understand the question.

rp

Swanner wrote: »

Even in an urban situation most traffic is moving faster then 30kph

Figures from 2007 give 13kph as the urban average for Dublin, dunno if that has improved or got worse, since. But I do know that the stretch of my commute that is monitored by the TMC (Heuston station to Spa Hotel) regularly shows average traffic speed as 20/22kph at the times I commute, a stretch where I'd expect to average something like 32kph (unless I get stuck behind cars).

seamus

Swanner wrote: »

Yes really. Not sure I understand the question.

Saying "Real Traffic" implies that cyclists are not "real" traffic, i.e. they shouldn't be on the road. Would that be your opinion?

The Bishop Basher

seamus wrote: »

Swanner wrote: »

Yes really. Not sure I understand the question.

Saying "Real Traffic" implies that cyclists are not "real" traffic, i.e. they shouldn't be on the road. Would that be your opinion?

No. Of course cyclists have every right to be on the road where there are no cycle lanes. But they don't have a right to cycle 3 or more abreast and block traffic. Likewise, they don't have a right to cycle defensively, hog a lane and block traffic.

Unfortunately I see the above all too often and it does frustrate drivers. Much the same way as a car travelling at 30kph in a 100kph will frustrate them.

seamus

Swanner wrote: »

Likewise, they don't have a right to cycle defensively

What makes you say that?

A cyclist has the right to use the full width of the road.

Moving over to allow other road users to pass is a courtesy which is extended when it is safe to do so, it's not a right of the other road users to get past.

C3PO

Swanner wrote: »

Likewise, they don't have a right to cycle defensively, hog a lane and block traffic.

Of course they do! What law says that cyclists are obliged to put their lives at risk by cycling in the gutter?

dave_o_brien

Swanner wrote: »

But they don't have a right to cycle 3 or more abreast and block traffic.

So we're all agreed on that then?

Swanner wrote: »

Likewise, they don't have a right to cycle defensively, hog a lane and block traffic.

Actually, they do. And block traffic? The implication is that the faster traffic has a right of way, which it doesn't; the road user ahead does, which in this case, is a cyclist. If the faster traffic can't overtake safely, then it has to wait, as the traffic ahead has the right of way. Even if it's a cyclist, or 20.

Swanner wrote: »

Unfortunately I see the above all too often and it does frustrate drivers. Much the same way as a car travelling at 30kph in a 100kph will frustrate them.

So does the frustration justify a potentially dangerous and occasionally criminal manoeuvre?

07Lapierre

seamus wrote: »

What makes you say that?

A cyclist has the right to use the full width of the road.

Moving over to allow other road users to pass is a courtesy which is extended when it is safe to do so, it's not a right of the other road users to get past.

+1, sums it up really... we are all "Road users". A bit of "courtesy" from both motorists and cyclists goes a long way.

Hmmzis

Swanner wrote: »

seamus wrote: »

Swanner wrote: »

Yes really. Not sure I understand the question.

Saying "Real Traffic" implies that cyclists are not "real" traffic, i.e. they shouldn't be on the road. Would that be your opinion?

No. Of course cyclists have every right to be on the road where there are no cycle lanes. But they don't have a right to cycle 3 or more abreast and block traffic. Likewise, they don't have a right to cycle defensively, hog a lane and block traffic.

Unfortunately I see the above all too often and it does frustrate drivers. Much the same way as a car travelling at 30kph in a 100kph will frustrate them.

if you get so easily frustrated in traffic then I'd suggest you try a less stressfull way of getting around than a motor vehicle before someone gets hurt or killed. At least let someone else drive who understands the liability of driving. There is a reason why training, licensing and insurance are all legal requirements for driving a 1.5 ton steel box.

The Bishop Basher

dave_o_brien wrote: »

So we're all agreed on that then?
Actually, they do. And block traffic? The implication is that the faster traffic has a right of way, which it doesn't; the road user ahead does, which in this case, is a cyclist. If the faster traffic can't overtake safely, then it has to wait, as the traffic ahead has the right of way. Even if it's a cyclist, or 20.
So does the frustration justify a potentially dangerous and occasionally criminal manoeuvre?

Sigh Yawn here we go. That's the standard cyclists sense of entitlement that gets up everyone's noses. I don't know why, maybe it's an inferiority complex or something but why can't cyclists accept that they are not driving cars. They're on push bikes and as such should behave accordingly. If i'm travelling slower then a car behind, as I often am in the camper, I pull in at the first opportunity to let them by. Likewise it's common place for trucks and HGV's to do likewise. It's common courtesy.

If I see a cyclist in front of me and the edge of the road is obviously in a poor state so they have to take up that "defensive" position, i'm happy to wait. I'm well aware that i'm driving something which could easily kill an unprotected cyclist and I drive accordingly. Unfortunately we all see the above entitlement displayed regularly, where there is absolutely no need to hog the lane. The "defensive position" argument is regularly trotted out as an excuse but it doesn't justify this behaviour.

And obviously nothing justifies a potentially dangerous manouver. I never suggested it did.

Anyway, i'll bow out of this, I didn't intend to get sucked into an argument, I was only answering the post i orginally replied to.

Lumen

@Swanner, why can't you accept that we're not driving campervans?

seamus

Swanner wrote: »

That's the standard cyclists sense of entitlement that gets up everyone's noses.

So when a campervan, a truck or a tractor is taking up the lane because there's no room to move over, that's OK. But when a cyclist does it, that's a "sense of entitlement"?

buffalo

seamus wrote: »

So when a campervan, a truck or a tractor is taking up the lane because there's no room to move over, that's OK. But when a cyclist does it, that's a "sense of entitlement"?

Yes, because cyclists don't pay road tax. Duh!

Tenzor07

Swanner wrote: »

I don't know why, maybe it's an inferiority complex or something

Maybe the "Inferiority complex" comes from the mis-match in Vehicle size?

1,500kg vs. 8kg? :rolleyes:

The Bishop Basher

@Lumen - Because you're not

seamus wrote: »

So when a campervan, a truck or a tractor is taking up the lane because there's no room to move over, that's OK. But when a cyclist does it, that's a "sense of entitlement"?

If a truck or a tractor is taking up a lane when there is space to pull over, they are also displaying a sense of entitlement. I used that example to liken the two. I have not differentiated in any way.

You really are a defensive bunch. Seriously, calm down