Cycling in parallel on bike paths (not bike lanes on roads)

mrcheez

Why do people do this? I know this is potential flame-bait but I'm genuinely curious.

I'm talking in respect of people cycling side by side on a two-way cycle lane (each lane being the width of a bike), taking up the full width and forcing people behind them to pull up and call out so they can pass, or potentially clipping oncoming bikes.

Take the Clontarf-Sutton bike lane, or Phoenix Park bike lane as an example.

There's no rationale as there is for doing it in bike lanes on the road (to minimise time that cars take to overtake, etc), beyond blocking the way for all other commuters so that you can have a chat.

Maybe it's just me, but I would think common etiquette dictates that you stay in single file, allowing faster commuters to overtake without hindrance and preventing oncoming collisions and then discuss the vitally important topics of the day at the start/end?


A co-worker last year encountered a messy sight when one such parallel cyclist (who refused to move) collided with an oncoming rider on the Clontarf stretch. My reason for bringing this up is that I narrowly escaped such an incident today.

magicbastarder

mrcheez wrote: »

so that you can have a chat.

there ya go.

monument

It's social. People not being willing to move is a side issue.

Side-by-side cycling is part of the vision for cycling in the Greater Dublin Area Cycle Network.

The S2S south of Bull Island should for the most part be able to take two side-by-side and another overtaking or coming from the other direction. Although it would be better wider than it is.

loyatemu

mrcheez wrote: »

A co-worker last year encountered a messy sight when one such parallel cyclist (who refused to move) collided with an oncoming rider on the Clontarf stretch. My reason for bringing this up is that I narrowly escaped such an incident today.

People are like elephants - some of them are just jerks.

magicbastarder

exactly; the issue above is not cycling side by side, it's refusing to move.

JBokeh

Try rattling through the gears or saying "on your right" and they might move over to let you pass if it was a case of them not hearing you coming up behind them, But then again some people are inconsiderate and don't realise it, like the guy sneezing onto the ATM in front of me this morning :eek:

Lumen

JBokeh wrote: »

Try rattling through the gears or saying "on your right" and they might move over to let you pass if it was a case of them not hearing you coming up behind them

In my experience shouting "on your right" to an inexperienced cyclist is likely to be heard/interpreted as "move right".

loyatemu

ring your bell!

Wishbone Ash

mrcheez wrote: »

... and forcing people behind them to pull up and call out so they can pass..

Coming up behind two cyclists abreast is a lot easier to manage than meeting two abreast training hard with their heads down (as can be frequently experienced on the Clontarf Sutton track).

Raam

loyatemu wrote: »

ring your bell!

Ring their bell.

mrcheez

loyatemu wrote: »

ring your bell!

It's actually something I should get for my main bike, have it on my other work-horse hybrid.

Or something louder so they can hear me well in advance and not force me to pull back. It's quite annoying when you want to maintain cadence.

When my gf and I cycle the stretch we keep to the left as she's not the fastest so don't want to be inconsiderate to others. It just seems selfish imho to dominate the whole lane, not to mention dangerous.

arybvtcw0eolkf

Wishbone Ash wrote: »

Coming up behind two cyclists abreast is a lot easier to manage than meeting two abreast training hard with their heads down (as can be frequently experienced on the Clontarf Sutton track).

How I ride in Clontarf

mrcheez

magicbastarder wrote: »

exactly; the issue above is not cycling side by side, it's refusing to move.

So the general consensus on this is that it's perfectly fine to dominate a whole lane and not at all inconsiderate for those coming up behind?

jon1981

mrcheez wrote: »

So the general consensus on this is that it's perfectly fine to dominate a whole lane and not at all inconsiderate for those coming up behind?

What's the problem with this? Remember the Clontarf to Sutton stretch for most is a leisure and scenic cycle not a training circuit.If you want to hump it along at a different pace than most then it's up to you to take due care in overtaking the two abreast. Generally I find when coming towards 2 abreast, they tend to give way ( I say that generally, you do come across the odd know who won't give way)

There are bigger issues with the Clontarf to Sutton stretch and it is not the two abreast cycling...

1. The fecking bushes are growing into one of the lanes for a good part of it which practically takes out a whole lane
2. Walkers feel the need to walk right on the white line separating cyclists and walkers... why?
3. The walking track is actually wider in places than the cycling track...why?
4. Parts of the cycle track is in bits - mainly at the points were cyclists/walkers can join.

magicbastarder

mrcheez wrote: »

So the general consensus on this is that it's perfectly fine to dominate a whole lane and not at all inconsiderate for those coming up behind?

or another way of phrasing your question - should two cyclists out for a leisurely spin be banned from having a chat?
cyclists are generally angered by motorists who insist they should not cycle two abreast; are we to then adopt that motorist stance on a cycle path where there are no cars?

monument

mrcheez wrote: »

So the general consensus on this is that it's perfectly fine to dominate a whole lane and not at all inconsiderate for those coming up behind?

Use your bell and people will move -- no issue.

Only issue is people not moving.

mrcheez

jon1981 wrote: »

2. Walkers feel the need to walk right on the white line separating cyclists and walkers... why?

I can kind of relate to this when I jog the route as the line is sort of a progress indicator, but obviously I keep around a foot off the edge.

What gets me is people who prefer to walk on the RHS of the lane, rather than LHS facing into the oncoming bike traffic which is far safer as you can see the bikes coming. Surely the RHS walkers get a fright when a bike zooms up behind them within inches?!?

magicbastarder wrote: »

or another way of phrasing your question - should two cyclists out for a leisurely spin be banned from having a chat?

I didn't say anything about banning, it's fine on an open stretch when there is sufficient room for others to overtake (such as on the stretch Sutton - Raheny). I was talking about consideration for others who may want to use the stretch for something other than "leisurely cycling". Why not ride in single file when it's clear you will end up taking over the majority of the lane?

Anyway my question was answered and I get the general consensus even if I don't agree with it (my gf and I will still give way to others, and have our side-by-side chat when we aren't blocking the entire lane). :rolleyes: