SKU: 93066937792
best all around double stroller

best all around double stroller Bumbleride Indie Twin Double Stroller Olive

$19.63 $21.81
Save 10%
No.2 Bestseller on www.warpunited.com >

Pay in installments of $5.45 with ShopPay, AfterPay and Klarna

Shipping Estimate
USA
  • USA
  • CAN

Ships within 48 hours · Estimated delivery Jul 24 - Jul 29

Promo Codes Available:

For Your Every Summer RSVP, with Code: SUMMER15

Description

best all around double stroller Bumbleride Indie Twin Double Stroller OliveThe Bumbleride Indie Twin is the best eco conscious side by side double stroller for parents of twins or siblings of different ages who need doorway friendly width (29. 5 inches) combined with smooth suspension, newborn ready dual seating, and sustainable materials. At 29. 5 inches wide, the Indie Twin fits through a standard doorframethe critical specification that determines whether a side by side double is actually usable for everyday life or only

The Bumbleride Indie Twin is the best eco-conscious side-by-side double stroller for parents of twins or siblings of different ages who need doorway-friendly width (29.5 inches) combined with smooth suspension, newborn-ready dual seating, and sustainable materials. At 29.5 inches wide, the Indie Twin fits through a standard doorframe—the critical specification that determines whether a side-by-side double is actually usable for everyday life or only for open spaces. At 36 lbs, it is a substantial frame, but the air-filled tires and all-wheel suspension make it push more smoothly than most comparable weight double strollers. The balanced push that comes from the side-by-side design is noticeably easier to control than a tandem on uneven pavement and packed trail surfaces, with front wheels that lock for running or faster movement on rough terrain. Compare the Bumbleride Indie Twin to the Bugaboo Donkey5: both are premium side-by-side double strollers with independent seat recline and broad car seat compatibility, but the Indie Twin features doorway-friendly 29.5" width, 100% natural cork antimicrobial handlebar, OEKO-TEX certified fabrics from 100% recycled PET (90 plastic bottles per stroller), 50% recycled fishing net frame plastics, and PFAS-free everything—plus each purchase removes 5 lbs of plastic from oceans via 4ocean partnership. Choose Indie Twin if you prioritize eco-conscious materials, doorway compatibility, and sustainable impact; choose Bugaboo Donkey5 if you want maximum modularity or prefer traditional materials. Both seats are independently adjustable and recline to a near-flat infant position without any attachments, making the Indie Twin newborn-ready from birth for twins or a newborn and toddler combination simultaneously.

Both seats are independently adjustable and recline to a near-flat infant position without any attachments, making the Indie Twin newborn-ready from birth for twins or a newborn and toddler combination. One seat can be in infant mode while the other is in a more upright toddler configuration, covering the most common real-world use case for siblings of different ages. Each seat supports up to 45 lbs for a combined capacity of 90 lbs. Dual car seat compatibility with Clek, Maxi-Cosi, Cybex, and Nuna infant car seats (using adapters sold separately) allows seamless transfer of a sleeping baby without waking them. The 2024 update introduced a 100% natural cork handlebar that is antimicrobial, non-toxic, and sustainably harvested, adjusting from 26.5 to 45.5 inches to accommodate parents of different heights. The fabrics are OEKO-TEX Standard 100 certified and made from 100% recycled PET representing 90 plastic bottles per stroller. The frame plastics are 50% sourced from recycled fishing nets, reducing ocean waste and supporting circular economy principles. All materials are rigorously tested and certified free from PFAS, fire retardants, PVC, BPA, phthalates, polyurethane foam, chlorine, vinyl, and formaldehyde. The durable water-repellent coating is also PFAS-free. Each Indie Twin purchase funds the removal of 5 lbs of plastic waste from oceans and waterways through Bumbleride's partnership with 4ocean, creating positive environmental impact with every purchase. The one-step compact fold auto-locks and stands independently for convenient storage between uses. The air-filled tires and all-wheel suspension provide smooth, comfortable rides on varied terrain from city streets to nature trails.

Bumbleride Indie Twin Double Stroller Features:

  • Doorway-friendly width: 29.5 inches wide fits through standard doorframes, making it the only side-by-side double truly usable for everyday real-world scenarios

  • Independent dual seating: Both seats recline to near-flat infant position without attachments, suitable from birth for twins or mixed-age siblings

  • High weight capacity: Each seat supports up to 45 lbs (90 lbs combined capacity), covering birth through early school years

  • Smooth suspension and handling: Air-filled tires and all-wheel suspension provide smooth rides on varied terrain; side-by-side design is easier to control than tandem strollers on uneven pavement and trails

  • Front wheel lock: Locks for running or faster movement on rough terrain, providing stability and control

  • Dual car seat compatibility: Works with Clek, Maxi-Cosi, Cybex, and Nuna infant car seats (adapters sold separately) for seamless sleeping baby transfers

  • Natural cork handlebar: 100% natural, antimicrobial, non-toxic, sustainably harvested cork; adjusts from 26.5 to 45.5 inches for different parent heights

  • Eco-certified fabrics: OEKO-TEX Standard 100 certified materials made from 100% recycled PET (equivalent to 90 plastic bottles per stroller)

  • Sustainable frame materials: 50% of frame plastics sourced from recycled fishing nets; eliminates ocean-bound plastic waste

  • Chemical-free certification: All materials rigorously tested and free from PFAS, fire retardants, PVC, BPA, phthalates, polyurethane foam, chlorine, vinyl, and formaldehyde

  • PFAS-free water-repellent coating: Durable protection without forever chemicals

  • Ocean impact program: Each Indie Twin purchase removes 5 lbs of plastic waste from oceans and waterways through 4ocean partnership

  • One-step compact fold: Auto-locks and stands independently for convenient storage and transport

  • Substantial but smooth-rolling: 36 lbs frame feels lighter in hand due to superior suspension and air-filled tire design

Safety and Comfort Features:

  • Independent seat recline: Both seats recline independently to near-flat infant position for newborn comfort and safety

  • Newborn-ready from birth: No additional bassinets or attachments needed; full flat recline built in

  • High weight capacity: 45 lbs per seat accommodates growth from birth through early school years

  • All-wheel suspension: Absorbs bumps and impacts for smooth, comfortable rides on any surface

  • Front wheel lock: Provides stability and control on trails and rough terrain

  • Chemical-free materials: All fabrics and frame plastics tested and certified free from harmful substances

Sustainability Features:

  • 100% recycled PET fabrics: OEKO-TEX Standard 100 certified; equivalent to 90 plastic bottles per stroller

  • 50% recycled fishing net frame plastics: Diverts ocean-bound plastic waste from waterways

  • Natural cork handlebar: Sustainably harvested, antimicrobial, non-toxic alternative to synthetic materials

  • PFAS-free durable water-repellent coating: Protection without forever chemicals

  • 4ocean partnership: Each purchase removes 5 lbs of plastic waste from oceans and waterways

  • Zero harmful chemicals: Free from PFAS, fire retardants, PVC, BPA, phthalates, polyurethane foam, chlorine, vinyl, and formaldehyde

Product Specifications

  • Type: Side-by-side double stroller
  • Width: 29.5 inches (fits standard doorframes)
  • Weight: 36 lbs
  • Weight capacity per seat: 45 lbs (90 lbs combined)
  • From-birth ready: Both seats recline to near-flat infant position
  • Seating configuration: Independent dual seat recline; one can be infant mode while other is toddler upright
  • Infant car seat compatibility: Clek, Maxi-Cosi, Cybex, Nuna (adapters required, sold separately)
  • Tires: Air-filled with all-wheel suspension
  • Handlebar: 100% natural cork, adjustable 26.5–45.5 inches
  • Fold type: One-step compact fold with auto-lock and independent stand
  • Fabric: OEKO-TEX Standard 100 certified, 100% recycled PET
  • Frame materials: 50% recycled fishing net plastics
  • Chemical certifications: PFAS-free, fire-retardant-free, PVC-free, BPA-free, phthalate-free, polyurethane-free, chlorine-free, vinyl-free, formaldehyde-free
  • Water resistance: PFAS-free durable water-repellent coating
  • Environmental program: 4ocean partnership removes 5 lbs plastic per purchase
  • Best for: Twins, mixed-age siblings, eco-conscious parents, doorway-friendly living, nature and trail use

ANB Baby carries the full Bumbleride collection and all orders over $45 ship free.

Shipping Notes
  • Free Standard Shipping on $100+ Orders to the USA.
  • Except Preorder products are shipped in 48 hours.
  • Delivery to the USA:
  1. Standard Shipping : 3-10 business days
  • If time is of the essence, please consider selecting expedited delivery for faster service.
Exchange/Return Notes
  • We offer a 30-day return/exchange service after receiving.
  • Final sale items are not eligible for returns or exchanges.
  • To process your return/exchange, please contact us at [email protected]
  • Please click here for more details>>> Return & Exchange Policy
SKU: 93066937792

Discover Niche Categories That Outsell best all around double stroller

Top-Converting Item to Boost Your Average Order

4.4 ★★★★★
Based on 24 reviews
Sort
Highest Rating
Newest First
Oldest First
Product Reviews
M
Verified Purchase
Matt Cockerill
Dallas, US
★★★★★ 5
Five Stars
Format: Hardcover
Strauss demolishes originalism in a concise and accessible volume.
WAS THIS REVIEW HELPFUL?YesReportShare
Reviewed in the United States on November 11, 2014
S
Verified Purchase
Stephen J. Jaros
West Palm Beach, US
★★★★★ 3
Ultimately disappointing .. but still a good read
Format: Hardcover
This book does have a few commendable features. It is written in laymen's language, you don't have to be a constitutional law scholar like David A. Strauss to comprehend the arguments. And it's short. Won't take more than a couple of hours to read. But as a critique of the "originalist" constitutional doctrine, it is hit and miss. For example, Strauss argues that originalism has three major flaws (p.18): 1) the impossibility of determining what the understanding of the founding fathers was on a particular issue. 2) the impossibility of translating an original understanding so that it addresses today's problems. 3) no answer for Thomas Jefferson's question about why we, the living, should be governed by the "dead hand" of past generations, including the founders. Of these three, the first is the most telling, because it is indeed sometimes the case that we do not know what the founders would have thought about a particular issue, because that issue simply did not exist at the time of the enactment of the constitution or a particular amendment, or because that original meaning could be lost to history. The patent-ability of new life forms as a result of genetic engineering being a good example (but, other technological examples, like cases related to airplanes and cars, are NOT good examples, since while the founders were unaware of these technological advances, it's safe to assume they would recognize them as transportation vehicles, so their understanding of ships and horse carriages would apply to them). That's why i am what Strauss might call a "sometimes originalist" - my view is that IF there is no reasonable doubt about what the enactors of a constitutional provision would have thought about a case, then that should control the decision a court arrives at. But obviously, if the issue was unknown to the enactors, or if their views are forever lost to us due to the passage of time, then there is no "original understanding" of that particular issue, and some other method of constitutional interpretation must be relied on. The second and third objections are far less compelling to me. The second objection is IMO a non-issue. To ask "well, we know that in 1880 the enactors of the 14th amendment did not believe its equal protection clause outlawed employment discrimination against women, but would they believe that if they were living in the year 2000, with all the economic/cultural/technological changes that have developed over those 120 years?" is an irrelevant question. It's like asking if the 1969 Congress that enacted the Clean Air Act would still enact it if that Congress were to debate the issue in 2010: it's purely speculative and ungermane, since neither statutes nor constitutional provisions have expiration dates on them. Likewise, the 3rd objection is both shallow and disingenuous. Shallow because Jefferson clearly understood that the constitution, like laws enacted by the legislature, are subject to change by later generations, who can amend the constitution or pass new legislation to supersede what previous generations have accomplished. Disingenuous, because the invocation of Jefferson seems to be a tactical decision by Strauss, a way to tweak originalists by citing one of the very greatest of our founding fathers. Yet Jefferson can also be quoted to support an originalist view. For example, in 1801 he said: "The Constitution on which our union rests, shall be administered by me according to the safe and honest meaning contemplated by the plain understanding of the people of the United States, at the time of its adoption....These explanations are preserved in the publications of the time, and are too recent in the memories of most men to admit of question." (Writings of Thomas Jefferson, quoted from a letter dated 3/27/1801). The first part of this quote clearly indicates that Jefferson believed that constitutional provisions should be interpreted according to original understanding, not "modern, evolved" standards of meaning as David Strauss would contend. The second part speaks to the need i identified before, that of knowing within the bounds of reasonable doubt what the enactors understood a provision to mean. Beyond all this, though, is David Strauss's contention that a "living constitution", as defined by a common-law like accretion of judicial precedent in constitutional matters that leave the original meaning of the text behind, is necessary because otherwise our constitution would become an archaic relic unable to meet the demands of a changing society, and that the formal amendment process is too slow and cumbersome. Professor Strauss correctly notes that Jefferson believed that our institutions must evolve with the development of society; however, he crucially fails to note that to Jefferson, the primary mechanism of such innovation was to be the actions of the legislature. Constitutional provisions are expounded in broad, general language not to enable future judges to interpret them in light of changing societal conditions, but to permit elected bodies, like legislatures and congress, wide latitude to address the problems of today. Legislative bodies, which directly reflect the ebbs and flows of societal change and are accountable to the people, were Jefferson's preferred vehicle of constitutional innovation, not the decisions of insulated, life-tenured court judges. On this point, unlike on many others, Jefferson was in agreement with John Marshall. As Jean Edward Smith (1996) writes "When (in McCulloch v. Maryland) Marshall spoke of the Constitution as "intended for ages to come" and of the need to adapt it "to the various crises of human affairs", he was alluding to the responsibility of Congress, not the Court. And the limits on Congress were defined by the political process, not the judiciary" (p. 445). Thus, for example, while the enactors of the 14th amendment did not intend for it to ban employment discrimination against women, it also was not intended to prevent Congress or the state legislatures, at the time of the enactment or in the future, from enacting legislation that does protect women from employment discrimination should that type of legislation be deemed necessary or advisable. Jefferson was far more wary of "innovative" actions by judges, exemplified by his belief that "if federal judges have the final word over its meaning, the Constitution would be a mere thing of wax in the hands of the judiciary, which they may twist and shape into any form they please". Yet it is exactly this type of judicial activism that Strauss means when advocates a "living constitution". Strauss's fundamental error is revealed on page 103 when he says that "We cannot say that the text of the constitution does not matter ... no (textual) provision of the constitution can be overruled in the way a precedent can, or disregarded the way original understandings often are". What Strauss is saying here (well, he wouldn't put it this way, but this is my view of the matter) is that when a judge wants to be activist, to impose his/her personal policy preferences on a case, it's very important that the judge somehow, through clever verbal gymnastics, no matter how convoluted, "ground" that ruling in some actual constitutional-textual language. This is very important for achieving the political purpose of maintaining respect for the court in the eyes of the public. But to me, Strauss creates a false dichotomy: The text of the constitution is ONE AND THE SAME with its "original understanding". The 'text', the actual words of the constitution, does not exist independent of the original understanding of those words, the text is merely the communicative vessel used to convey that original understanding. That's the way language works. It's a method to convey meaning. Thus, to invoke the Due Process Clause of the 5th amendment to outlaw Federal segregation laws (as the Court did in 1955) when the enactors of the 5th amendment clearly (as Strauss admits) did not intend for it to mean that, is the SAME THING as ignoring the "text" of the constitution, since the text and original understanding are one and the same. Overall, i recommend this book. One will learn alot about constitutional history, and Professor Strauss is surely correct in that the "living constitution" view is in fact the dominant way in which the Court has gone about its business in practice, regardless of what legal theoreticians have thought. But, don't expect to be convinced by much Professor Strauss has to say about why this is a good thing.
WAS THIS REVIEW HELPFUL?YesReportShare
Reviewed in the United States on May 18, 2010
R
Ross L. Meyer
Fort Morgan, US
★★★★★ 5
Originalist v Living Document , 5 - 4
Format: Hardcover
I found the author's arguments to be logical and compelling. Those who embrace the so-called originalist view of the Constitution, for example Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia, claim that they know - with great certainty - the absolute intent of the Constitution's authors. Further they claim that the Constitution provides specifics and principles which of course it does. It is simple to understand the specifics, but what about the principles? Principles, it seems to me, can and do have differing interpretations. One of the definitions of the word principle found in Merriam-Webster states, "a moral rule or belief that helps you know what is right and wrong and that influences your actions." As we all know, rules and beliefs frequently mean different things to different people. If it were not so, Supreme Court decisions would inevitably be decided 9 - 0. Many are familiar with the Supreme Court's case District of Columbia v. Heller in which Justice Scalia opined that the Second Amendment shouldn't stop the U.S. from barring certain weapons. While his opinion certainly seems reasonable to me, I cannot find that principle in the Constitution. Rather it seems to be a logical conclusion based on modern society, mores, and laws - perhaps, as Professor Strauss argues, Common Law. Whether one accepts the originalist view of the Constitution or, as I, believes a living interpretation of the great document is preferable, the one thing we can all agree on is that our nation is one of laws. To that end, it is incumbent on all citizens to accept and abide by the pronouncements of our judges, agree with them or not.
WAS THIS REVIEW HELPFUL?YesReportShare
Reviewed in the United States on November 18, 2014
B
Verified Purchase
Brenda B.
Chelsea, US
★★★★★ 5
My Grandchildren LOVED this!
Format: Hardcover
I read this out loud to my two grandchildren ages 4 and 6 at bedtime. They're so excited to be reading a chapter book and they LOVED it! The book's quirky sense of humor is great and it was fun to hear the kids giggle. We loved how the sloth appears in each story. They couldn't wait for the next night to read. Mr Angleberger- please write more!!!
WAS THIS REVIEW HELPFUL?YesReportShare
Reviewed in the United States on October 24, 2017
J
Verified Purchase
Jewels
Lexington, US
★★★★★ 5
Got my 8 year old to read!
Format: Hardcover
My eight year old hated reading and refused to pick up any book, until this arrived in the mail. He as usual refused at first to read it but I made him read a couple of pages, which he did and put it down but the next day he asked to read it and read the entire book in 30 mins. He said he loved it and it was really funny. Already have the 2nd book on its way.
WAS THIS REVIEW HELPFUL?YesReportShare
Reviewed in the United States on March 15, 2017

recommand products

Succulent arrangement in Berg's Italian Elizabeth Pot
20.38
Succulent 'String Of Pearls' 4"
23.61
Small Succulent Arrangement
23.87
Succulent Arrangement
28.27
Handcrafted Faux Mix Succulents In Bowl 13"
24.00