New Forest MP calls for mandatory bike bells

hirsute wrote:

I actually came up behind some pedestrians today. Since I don't have a bell, I compromised with saying 'ding, ding'. (As well as no bell, my bike was also sold with zero reflectors and no pedals).

I don't have a bell either, on any of my bikes.

Cycling up Greenwich Park the other day, during a period when it was closed to motor traffic, and some bloke's coming down The Avenue on a bike with a child seat on the back, and a small child sat in the seat.  The cyclist has both feet off the pedals and his feet jutting forward, and he's going at God knows what speed - I know that freewheeling, I can touch 32.5 mph on that downhill.  And he's sounding his bell repeatedly and shouting at pedestrians to get out of the way.  

I wonder how he'd feel if a car driver came up behind him, sounding the horn repeatedly…

hirsute wrote:

I actually came up behind some pedestrians today. Since I don't have a bell, I compromised with saying 'ding, ding'. (As well as no bell, my bike was also sold with zero reflectors and no pedals).

I don't have a bell either, on any of my bikes.

Cycling up Greenwich Park the other day, during a period when it was closed to motor traffic, and some bloke's coming down The Avenue on a bike with a child seat on the back, and a small child sat in the seat.  The cyclist has both feet off the pedals and his feet jutting forward, and he's going at God knows what speed - I know that freewheeling, I can touch 32.5 mph on that downhill.  And he's sounding his bell repeatedly and shouting at pedestrians to get out of the way.  

I wonder how he'd feel if a car driver came up behind him, sounding the horn repeatedly…

johnnybaloney]<p>[quote=bike.owner wrote:

Mungecrundle wrote:

So to be clear, are you arguing against the right of pedestrians to use a shared path or road, against the idea of shared paths in general or do you think that a law requiring all cycles to have a bell afixed will somehow remove the stress and worry from pedestrians? For the record I do feel far safer walking / running on a shared path with cyclists than on a country lane with cars. Hope mentioning runners doesn't also cause you issues because I sure as shit aint attaching morris bells to my reeboks.

To be clear, I only explained to you the reason why walkers, as you observed but couldn't get why, feel insecure by the presence of cyclists on shared paths.

Now, if you want to know my view on shared paths, it's a cheap way of inflating the number of cycle lanes statistics by stealing room from pedestrians. In a way it is similar to painting edge of the road green and sticking a picture of a cycle on it. However, this time it's the cyclist who gets exposed to danger, squeezed between the kerb and the rest of moving traffic. See the parallel there?

This is what we have to live with for now, though. Perhaps it's better than nothing but we owe to the pedestrians for invading what used to be their private space and, yes, I believe a bell can reduce the stress and worry from them. It is more likely that the bell will be used if it's there.

Runners can be a nuisance too, depends where they run. Not long ago, there was a big story of a woman who got pushed by a jogger and almost ended up under a bus.

One last attempt to help you realise the absurdity of this proposal.

You keep coming back to equating pedestrian fear of sharing space with cyclists to cyclists concerns over sharing space with motors. It has been pointed out several times that cyclists statistically represent a very small risk of injury to the pedestrian in such environments and you have presented no data to suggest otherwise. So the fear is one of perception that cyclists are causing a hazard due to their noiseless ways. Begrudgingly you have accepted the fact of shared use facilities and propose that pedestrian fears will somehow be alleviated by mandating that cycles are fitted with bells, discounting the perfectly fit for purpose option of using one's outdoor voice.

To put this frankly absurd notion into perspective, the law requires motor vehicles to be fitted with a working horn, it is even part of the MOT. Does this fact remove the danger or significantly reduce the perception of hazard from motorised traffic when cycling or walking on a roadway shared with such vehicles?

The reason why there is no legislation w.r.t. enforcing bells on cycles currently is because it is not required. Enforcing bad law is detrimental to society and deflects scarce resources from fixing things which are genuine problems.

I think your last reference "runners can be a nuisance too" really tells us where you are coming from. You simply see people using a resource in a different way to you as a nuisance. I'm guessing that you have not been around humans for very long, but you will fit in much quicker if you learn how to share and tolerate others.

johnnybaloney wrote:

Great link. Here is one from me:

Quote:

In parts of Canada, bell-less cyclists can be pulled over by the police and fined up to $100 - about £40.

Sounds like a quick win to me. I wonder what would they make of the above guy's insurance 'trick'. Now go and tell the Canadian police how it doesn't make sense.

Of course, in either case it's not about making money. That these schemes pay for themselves is just a nice bonus.

I fail to see the relevance of a little enforced law in Canada. I'd wager that most Canadian cyclists either don't know about it or don't care about it (like pedal reflectors here in the UK).

Got any stats on how many times the Canadian police have fined cyclists for that?

I've got no problem with having and using a bell on my bike, but to focus on that aspect of road safety is completely missing the elephant in the room - motor vehicles.

johnnybaloney wrote:

That's why you have 'litter police' despite of not having a single fatality caused by dropping a cigarette butt on the street. What you seem to be saying is that whoever is behind the 'litter police' idea should reconsider their views, because there are other more pressing problems in the world. Or are there no fatalities in Bristol?

You didn't read the article on the 'litter police' did you? They are private contractors hired by the council for the sole purpose of fining litterers and are clearly self funding. They aren't police (hence the quote marks around 'litter police') and don't solve crimes in their spare time (unless they are secret masked heroes).

johnnybaloney wrote:

It is possible to deal with multiple problems of different severity at the same time. That's why you have 'litter police' despite of not having a single fatality caused by dropping a cigarette butt on the street. What you seem to be saying is that whoever is behind the 'litter police' idea should reconsider their views, because there are other more pressing problems in the world. Or are there no fatalities in Bristol?

Yes, indeed, and many of us earn a living by deciding what to do next and being able to justify our decisions. That includes showing that there is a real problem, that the proposed solution addresses it significantly, costing it, and prioritising it over other demands for the resources. In this case mandatory fitting of bells doesn't address the problem, which is one of perception, so it falls at the second hurdle, if not the first.

Parliament has consistently taken the view that it's not worth it, but good luck with your proposal, I look forward to seeing how parliament deals with it.

In fact, I'm so big-hearted that I'll help you a little bit. Making the fitting of bells mandatory won't solve anything, so I'll suggest to you something that might work.

If there were a genuine problem then a solution that might work would be to make it a legal requirement for at least one member of any group of cyclists to provide some sort of reasonably unambiguous warning that could reasonably be detected in the prevailing conditions by pedestrians, including deaf people (of whom I am one) and others with disabilities, within a certain range. Under some circumstances it might be ringing a bell, but I can't think of any circumstances when merely having a bell on the bicycle would provide the warning.

Describe when the warning must be issued, under what conditions? Is it only from behind? What about blind people who can't see you coming? What are the pedestrians obliged to do when they detect the warning?

Does this only apply to cyclists? If so, why? What about skateboarders, scooterers and joggers? What about people who walk a bit faster than me, or are pushing a buggy quickly?

Your mission now, should you choose to accept, is to tell me how that will work when I'm walking on Kinder Scout, wearing my hearing aids, in a winter rainstorm, buffeted by a howling gail, and a group of mountain bikers comes racing past me from behind, without giving a warning that I could detect, and give me a bit of a fright. How are you going to enforce that? Will there be a PCSO there every time I need one, or is it just my word against theirs?

johnnybaloney wrote:

It is my view and no, I haven't conducted any scientific research to back it up but I have a bit of common sense. 

*Sighs*

johnnybaloney wrote:

Mungecrundle wrote:

I think that what this is really down to is walkers who, for whatever reason, feel insecure by the presence of cyclists on shared paths, and I can sort of sympathise with this.

You said the reason, the space is shared. Have you ever walked on a road without a pavement? How did it feel?

So to be clear, are you arguing against the right of pedestrians to use a shared path or road, against the idea of shared paths in general or do you think that a law requiring all cycles to have a bell afixed will somehow remove the stress and worry from pedestrians?

For the record I do feel far safer walking / running on a shared path with cyclists than on a country lane with cars. Hope mentioning runners doesn't also cause you issues because I sure as shit aint attaching morris bells to my reeboks.

johnnybaloney wrote:

You could make the same twisted argument about many things, for example, littering which is an offence, completely unenforcable, waste of time and money as you say. Yet the rule exists despite most definitely being difficult to enforce. Shall we scrap it then? I wouldn't.

Here in Bristol we've got some 'litter police' that are very effective and seem to be cost effective: https://www.bristolpost.co.uk/news/bristol-news/live-bristol-litter-police-take-1470578

In general, ineffective laws are just ignored rather than being scrapped, but in this case the MP wants to start enforcing a completely ineffective law, so you're not really making much sense with your argument.

johnnybaloney wrote:

ConcordeCX wrote:

People have been wittering on about mandatory bells since bicycles were born, and they’ve never been made a legal requirement because it's unenforceable and a complete waste of time and money.

You could make the same twisted argument about many things, for example, littering which is an offence, completely unenforcable, waste of time and money as you say. Yet the rule exists despite most definitely being difficult to enforce. Shall we scrap it then? I wouldn't.

ConcordeCX wrote:

if you still think otherwise, how about some costed, practical plans? You and this MP can get a grip, sit down together and work it all out instead of mouthing sanctimonious platitudes.

Yes, I might actually send him suggestions, good idea. Once you rage subsides, you will find some sound advice in what you now perceive as platitudes.

ConcordeCX wrote:

Time and money which would be better spent, as Dollimore suggests, dealing with the things which do most harm,

Over to you then, I'm expecting a costed, practical plan by the end of the weekend.

ConcordeCX wrote:

despite your absurd and unsupported claim that “You are as dangerous on paths to pedestrians as cars are to you on roads”.

It is my view and no, I haven't conducted any scientific research to back it up but I have a bit of common sense. Also look up statistics about pedestrians who have been killed or injured by cyclists, it does happen. So I stand by what I said, pedestrians are as vulnerable to bicycles, just as cyclists are to the cars.

it's not a twisted argument, it's just an argument, and the same one that parliament uses to reject calls for the law you propose.

I don't do rage; indeed I'd be very pleased if you'd copy your suggestions to this forum when you send them to the Right Honourable member.

You don't need to wait all weekend for a costed, practical plan to deal with the things that do most harm, there's one already:

https://consultations.tfl.gov.uk/cycling/draft-safety-action-plan/

You're quite right that pedestrians have been killed or injured by cyclists. Here is some easily-obtained information about the relative vulnerabilities. For 2016 it's: cars killed cyclists 116; bicycles killed pedestrians 0. Looking a bit further you'll see that in GB from 2007-2016 motor vehicles were involved in 99.4% of collisions in which a pedestrian died. What does your common sense make of that? Does it not cause you to reconsider your 'view'?

https://www.cyclinguk.org/campaigning/views-and-briefings/pedestrians

https://www.rospa.com/road-safety/advice/pedal-cyclists/facts-figures/

ConcordeCX wrote:

johnnybaloney wrote:

ConcordeCX wrote:

People have been wittering on about mandatory bells since bicycles were born, and they’ve never been made a legal requirement because it's unenforceable and a complete waste of time and money.

You could make the same twisted argument about many things, for example, littering which is an offence, completely unenforcable, waste of time and money as you say. Yet the rule exists despite most definitely being difficult to enforce. Shall we scrap it then? I wouldn't.

ConcordeCX wrote:

if you still think otherwise, how about some costed, practical plans? You and this MP can get a grip, sit down together and work it all out instead of mouthing sanctimonious platitudes.

Yes, I might actually send him suggestions, good idea. Once you rage subsides, you will find some sound advice in what you now perceive as platitudes.

ConcordeCX wrote:

Time and money which would be better spent, as Dollimore suggests, dealing with the things which do most harm,

Over to you then, I'm expecting a costed, practical plan by the end of the weekend.

ConcordeCX wrote:

despite your absurd and unsupported claim that “You are as dangerous on paths to pedestrians as cars are to you on roads”.

It is my view and no, I haven't conducted any scientific research to back it up but I have a bit of common sense. Also look up statistics about pedestrians who have been killed or injured by cyclists, it does happen. So I stand by what I said, pedestrians are as vulnerable to bicycles, just as cyclists are to the cars.

it's not a twisted argument, it's just an argument, and the same one that parliament uses to reject calls for the law you propose.

I don't do rage; indeed I'd be very pleased if you'd copy your suggestions to this forum when you send them to the Right Honourable member.

You don't need to wait all weekend for a costed, practical plan to deal with the things that do most harm, there's one already:

https://consultations.tfl.gov.uk/cycling/draft-safety-action-plan/

You're quite right that pedestrians have been killed or injured by cyclists. Here is some easily-obtained information about the relative vulnerabilities. For 2016 it's: cars killed cyclists 116; bicycles killed pedestrians 0. Looking a bit further you'll see that in GB from 2007-2016 motor vehicles were involved in 99.4% of collisions in which a pedestrian died. What does your common sense make of that? Does it not cause you to reconsider your 'view'?

https://www.cyclinguk.org/campaigning/views-and-briefings/pedestrians

https://www.rospa.com/road-safety/advice/pedal-cyclists/facts-figures/

^ wot 'e sed

hawkinspeter wrote:

If a bell is mandatory does that mean that deaf/hard of hearing pedestrians will be banned from the area for their own safety?

No, that would be absurd. All deaf people will be required to fit Bluetooth-enabled hearing aids or cochlear implants. And all bells will have to broadcast their ding over Bluetooth. All of the above to be checked and calibrated monthly at a designated MOT centre.

ConcordeCX wrote:

hawkinspeter wrote:

If a bell is mandatory does that mean that deaf/hard of hearing pedestrians will be banned from the area for their own safety?

No, that would be absurd. All deaf people will be required to fit Bluetooth-enabled hearing aids or cochlear implants. And all bells will have to broadcast their ding over Bluetooth. All of the above to be checked and calibrated monthly at a designated MOT centre.

 

Don't forget DRLs, hi-vis and two transponders (one as a back up) plus a Hovding hat, otherwise the feckers would be just asking for it!

Re pedestrian deaths, the recent study into cycling safety showed pedestrians at fault for their own deaths 50% more than people on bikes in pedestrian/person on bike incidents.

BBB wrote:

The Bell End Gate is just another attack on New Forest cyclists

Lol! A requirement for having a bell on bike is an attack on cyclists. I'll give you a tip, install a bell and you should be safe from such oppression, until the next such unreasonable demand comes along that is.

johnnybaloney wrote:

BBB wrote:

The Bell End Gate is just another attack on New Forest cyclists

Lol! A requirement for having a bell on bike is an attack on cyclists. I'll give you a tip, install a bell and you should be safe from such oppression, until the next such unreasonable demand comes along that is.

It already has, innumberable times; helmets.

burtthebike wrote:

johnnybaloney wrote:

BBB wrote:

The Bell End Gate is just another attack on New Forest cyclists

Lol! A requirement for having a bell on bike is an attack on cyclists. I'll give you a tip, install a bell and you should be safe from such oppression, until the next such unreasonable demand comes along that is.

It already has, innumberable times; helmets.

The parable of the camel's nose:

http://www.mainlesson.com/display.php?author=scudder&book=fables&story=arab

johnnybaloney wrote:

I totally agree with this idea that it should be made mandatory to have bells fitted to bicycles, not only in New Forest but everywhere and regardless of who proposes this idea. I'm surpised by the sort of hostility to this in the comments and in particular by the response from Duncan Dollimore who like a seasoned politician goes off on a tangent and talks about cars vs cyclists and cars vs animals rathern than staying on topic.

Are you fellow cyclists upset that you are asked to cycle responsibly? Or are you cycling extremists annoyed that pedestrians ruin your times on Strava and the like?

[...]
So get a grip, stop throwing a tantrum like spoiled little girls, get a bell and use it. You are as dangerous on paths to pedestrians as cars are to you on roads.

Finally, if you cycle fast you should really be on the road not on a path, not even a cycle path. They are for average cyclists, not speeding pros.

well, oh Saintly One, once every bike has a bell how are you going to make everyone use it, and under what circumstances must they use it? 

People have been wittering on about mandatory bells since bicycles were born, and they’ve never been made a legal requirement because it's unenforceable and a complete waste of time and money. 

Time and money which would be better spent, as Dollimore suggests, dealing with the things which do most harm, despite your absurd and unsupported claim that “You are as dangerous on paths to pedestrians as cars are to you on roads”.

if you still think otherwise, how about some costed, practical plans? You and this MP can get a grip, sit down together and work it all out instead of mouthing sanctimonious platitudes.

johnnybaloney wrote:

I totally agree with this idea that it should be made mandatory to have bells fitted to bicycles, not only in New Forest but everywhere and regardless of who proposes this idea. I'm surpised by the sort of hostility to this in the comments and in particular by the response from Duncan Dollimore who like a seasoned politician goes off on a tangent and talks about cars vs cyclists and cars vs animals rathern than staying on topic.

Are you fellow cyclists upset that you are asked to cycle responsibly? Or are you cycling extremists annoyed that pedestrians ruin your times on Strava and the like?

The statement that bells are negated by pedestrians is false to say the least and it's a silly assumption and excuse not to go and get a bell (an accessory that costs next to nothing by the way). I have a bell on my folding bike, my commuter bike, my road bike and fitted one on my partner's bike and taught her how to use it, because she was either not using it or doing it wrong.

The statement that a bell can't be heard above 10mph is also false. I ride faster than that and people have no problem in hearing my bell.

I commute 50 miles every day, partially through the woods frequented by joggers, walkers, dog walkers, horse riders, slow cyclists, all sorts. I slow down and ring the bell twice well in advance to give them plenty of time to change formation (it can be a comedy dance sometimes that can take a moment), grab the dog, move to a side, whatever. If they don't react I repeat the process as I get closer. Then I say 'thanks' as I pass by - they interrupt my ride but I interrupt their walk just as much.

In the majority of cases people will make room, get off the path, manage to catch their pets etc. Sometimes they will say thanks too. The notion that ringing a bell is seen as a sign of aggression and met with insults is silly, maybe you are doing it wrong or maybe you somehow convinced yourself that this is true.

Occassionally I have to slow down more, sometimes even almost stop, as people won't react for whatever reason, I don't make assumptions. I'm a 120kg bullet going at speed with a helmet on. I'm aware that they don't stand a chance. I ring the bell when I approach blind corners too, even when I'm crusing on my tiny Raleigh 20.

So get a grip, stop throwing a tantrum like spoiled little girls, get a bell and use it. You are as dangerous on paths to pedestrians as cars are to you on roads.

Finally, if you cycle fast you should really be on the road not on a path, not even a cycle path. They are for average cyclists, not speeding pros.

”johnnybaloney”, eh? Is that because of what you say?

A cyclist travelling near pedestrians is often seen by them to be “speeding” regardless of how fast they are actually moving.

And I suspect in any case that this MPs anecdata came from this one person they met over drinks after a local club meeting...

johnnybaloney wrote:

I totally agree with this idea that it should be made mandatory to have bells fitted to bicycles, not only in New Forest but everywhere and regardless of who proposes this idea. I'm surpised by the sort of hostility to this in the comments and in particular by the response from Duncan Dollimore who like a seasoned politician goes off on a tangent and talks about cars vs cyclists and cars vs animals rathern than staying on topic.

Are you fellow cyclists upset that you are asked to cycle responsibly? Or are you cycling extremists annoyed that pedestrians ruin your times on Strava and the like?

The statement that bells are negated by pedestrians is false to say the least and it's a silly assumption and excuse not to go and get a bell (an accessory that costs next to nothing by the way). I have a bell on my folding bike, my commuter bike, my road bike and fitted one on my partner's bike and taught her how to use it, because she was either not using it or doing it wrong.

The statement that a bell can't be heard above 10mph is also false. I ride faster than that and people have no problem in hearing my bell.

'.......and fitted one on my partner's bike and taught her how to use it, because she was either not using it or doing it wrong.'

An accessory that 'costs next to nothing' and your partner needs a lesson how to use it. Really?

I smell BS, I smell BBS (BaloneyBullShit) <ding, ding>

johnnybaloney wrote:

So get a grip, stop throwing a tantrum like spoiled little girls, get a bell and use it. You are as dangerous on paths to pedestrians as cars are to you on roads.

Pure trolling.

I already gave the 2016 pedestrians stats in the thread.

johnnybaloney wrote:

I totally agree with this idea that it should be made mandatory to have bells fitted to bicycles, not only in New Forest but everywhere and regardless of who proposes this idea. I'm surpised by the sort of hostility to this in the comments and in particular by the response from Duncan Dollimore who like a seasoned politician goes off on a tangent and talks about cars vs cyclists and cars vs animals rathern than staying on topic.

Are you fellow cyclists upset that you are asked to cycle responsibly? Or are you cycling extremists annoyed that pedestrians ruin your times on Strava and the like?

The statement that bells are negated by pedestrians is false to say the least and it's a silly assumption and excuse not to go and get a bell (an accessory that costs next to nothing by the way). I have a bell on my folding bike, my commuter bike, my road bike and fitted one on my partner's bike and taught her how to use it, because she was either not using it or doing it wrong.

The statement that a bell can't be heard above 10mph is also false. I ride faster than that and people have no problem in hearing my bell.

I commute 50 miles every day, partially through the woods frequented by joggers, walkers, dog walkers, horse riders, slow cyclists, all sorts. I slow down and ring the bell twice well in advance to give them plenty of time to change formation (it can be a comedy dance sometimes that can take a moment), grab the dog, move to a side, whatever. If they don't react I repeat the process as I get closer. Then I say 'thanks' as I pass by - they interrupt my ride but I interrupt their walk just as much.

In the majority of cases people will make room, get off the path, manage to catch their pets etc. Sometimes they will say thanks too. The notion that ringing a bell is seen as a sign of aggression and met with insults is silly, maybe you are doing it wrong or maybe you somehow convinced yourself that this is true.

Occassionally I have to slow down more, sometimes even almost stop, as people won't react for whatever reason, I don't make assumptions. I'm a 120kg bullet going at speed with a helmet on. I'm aware that they don't stand a chance. I ring the bell when I approach blind corners too, even when I'm crusing on my tiny Raleigh 20.

So get a grip, stop throwing a tantrum like spoiled little girls, get a bell and use it. You are as dangerous on paths to pedestrians as cars are to you on roads.

Finally, if you cycle fast you should really be on the road not on a path, not even a cycle path. They are for average cyclists, not speeding pros.

'The notion that ringing a bell is seen as a sign of aggression and met with insults' is based on experience, on that _actually happening_.  I've had it a few times, to the point I concluded it was better to actually speak and point out I was there using words (tiring as that can be, it seems to be better recieved).  I don't see how you are qualified to tell people they haven't experienced what they have experienced - that seems a trifle narcissistic on your part.

And this is all bollocks - straining at a two-wheeled gnat while swallowing a motorised elephant. 

Are there anti-social boy-racer cyclists?  Of course, I've encountered a good few.  Very occasionally gotten into a confrontation with them (when I've judged they don't look like the stabby type).

Are they anything like the problem this MP makes them out to be?  No, and as long as the real issue of dangerous use of motorised vehiceles is never addressed properly then this stuff is always going to sound like a deliberate distraction.  The daft idea that compulsory bells is somehow going to change the minority of irresponsible cyclists is further evidence to me that it's not about actually solving any real problem.

Plus a good part of the real answer is to stop building crappy shared-use paths when something better is required (sustrans guy take note).

kingleo wrote:

How can I brake with two hands and ring a bell at the same time?

Your bell is clearly in the wrong place.