- News
- Reviews
- Bikes
- Accessories
- Accessories - misc
- Computer mounts
- Bags
- Bar ends
- Bike bags & cases
- Bottle cages
- Bottles
- Cameras
- Car racks
- Child seats
- Computers
- Glasses
- GPS units
- Helmets
- Lights - front
- Lights - rear
- Lights - sets
- Locks
- Mirrors
- Mudguards
- Racks
- Pumps & CO2 inflators
- Puncture kits
- Reflectives
- Smart watches
- Stands and racks
- Trailers
- Clothing
- Components
- Bar tape & grips
- Bottom brackets
- Brake & gear cables
- Brake & STI levers
- Brake pads & spares
- Brakes
- Cassettes & freewheels
- Chains
- Chainsets & chainrings
- Derailleurs - front
- Derailleurs - rear
- Forks
- Gear levers & shifters
- Groupsets
- Handlebars & extensions
- Headsets
- Hubs
- Inner tubes
- Pedals
- Quick releases & skewers
- Saddles
- Seatposts
- Stems
- Wheels
- Tyres
- Health, fitness and nutrition
- Tools and workshop
- Miscellaneous
- Tubeless valves
- Buyers Guides
- Features
- Forum
- Recommends
- Podcast
news
2020 Spurcycle Compact Bell.jpgLondon cyclists better off shouting than using bell, says transport minister
Transport Minister Baroness Vere of Norbiton has said that cyclists in London are better off shouting than using a bell, and that the government has no plans to make it compulsory for riders to have one on their bike.
Speaking in a House of Lords debate, the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State said: “The government are not about to mandate bells on bicycles. That would be disproportionate, and it is unlikely that any enforcement would be a police priority.
“However, cyclists must take responsibility for their actions. A little ‘ding ding’ on a bell on a bridleway is perfectly fine, but if you are travelling in central London, it will get you nowhere, and in those circumstances, a shout is probably preferable.
“I am afraid that the government will not be mandating bells at the present time.”
Yesterday’s debate was tabled by Tory peer Lord Lexden, the official historian of the Conservative Party, who asked the government “what assessment they have made of any hazards that arise when cyclists fail to make use of bicycle bells.”
In her initial response to that question, Baroness Vere said: “Cyclists, like all road users, have a responsibility to behave in a safe and responsible manner.
“Rule 66 of the Highway Code recommends that bells are fitted and used as necessary, and all new bikes must be sold with a bell fitted.”
> 12 of the best bicycle bells to get you heard on the road
In reply, Lord Lexden asked, “What can be done about the huge number of cyclists without bells, which does not lack aggressive and foul-mouthed elements?
“Some of them seem to prefer pavements to their designated cycle lanes, having presumably discarded the bells which … are required by law when bicycles are first sold. Is this not completely irresponsible?”
Baroness Vere replied: “I am going to try very hard not to make this a pro- and anti-cycling question, because there are many people on our roads – pedestrians, cyclists, horse riders, motorcyclists and drivers of motorised vehicles – and we must ensure that each considers their impact on other road users.
“My noble friend is right that we must do something. The core is education and training.
“In the government’s cycling strategy, Gear Change: A Bold Vision for Cycling and Walking, we said that every adult and child who wants it can be trained on how to ride a bicycle safely.”
Some peers used the opportunity of the debate to express concerns over pedicabs and electric scooters, while the former Labour MP and now cross-bench peer Baroness Hoey, claiming that “millions of pedestrians on pavements feel intimated and threatened by that small minority of anti-social cyclists,” asking whether “they all have something that shows who they are, so that they can be identified?”
The minister replied: “In the cycling and walking safety review of 2018 we looked at licensing, but we concluded that the costs would outweigh the benefits of getting more people on to a bike.”
In response to another peer who similarly raised concerns over the danger he claimed that cyclists pose to pedestrians, she referred to the recent consultation on proposed changes to the Highway Code, saying: “We want to ensure that those who can cause the greatest harm have the greatest responsibility to reduce danger or threat.
“In those circumstances, a cyclist would have the responsibility to a pedestrian or a runner to ensure that they were safe and did not feel intimidated.”
The Conservative peer Lord Robathan observed that “Pedestrians very often do not hear nor react to bicycle bells” and that “motorists invariably do not.
“In a collision with a car or a pedestrian, a cyclist is likely to come off worse because he has further to fall,” he said.
Calling for greater enforcement against motorists who encroach on advanced stop lines, he noted that “The problem is not with vulnerable cyclists but with motor vehicles and sometimes pedestrians who are not paying attention or taking sufficient care.”
Baroness Vere agreed “that perhaps a little more could be done around making sure that motorists do not stop in those boxes because they are really key for cyclists.
“It is about educating the drivers of motor vehicles as well,” she continued, highlighting the hierarchy of road users that formed part of the Highway Code consultation.
“We have got 21,000 responses on that,” she explained. “That has the capacity to fundamentally change the way we think about fellow road users, in whichever mode they choose to travel, and how we keep ourselves – and them – safe.”
The final question to the minister came from Labour peer Lord Berkeley, a patron of the All Party Parliamentary Group on Cycling and Walking.
He asked: “Does the minister agree that the biggest hazard for cyclists is actually unsafe drivers?
“They may be anti-social and some of the cyclists are anti-social. Does she agree that the common problem is the silent approach, be it by cyclists or electric cars? Surely the answer there is to make people use bells.
“Personally, I use a horn when I can because it is even better,” he added. “It wakes up people who are probably on a mobile phone in their car.”
I very much hope that they are not on their mobile phone in their car; otherwise, I shall have words,” replied Baroness Vere.
She said that Lord Berkeley had made “some incredibly important points. It is a question of making sure that the balance is right between the actions of the motorist and the actions of the cyclist.
“I think I have been able to set out what the government are doing.
“We are focused on ensuring that the right balance is achieved and we need to make sure that motorists as well as cyclists behave in the way that they should,” she concluded.
Simon joined road.cc as news editor in 2009 and is now the site’s community editor, acting as a link between the team producing the content and our readers. A law and languages graduate, published translator and former retail analyst, he has reported on issues as diverse as cycling-related court cases, anti-doping investigations, the latest developments in the bike industry and the sport’s biggest races. Now back in London full-time after 15 years living in Oxford and Cambridge, he loves cycling along the Thames but misses having his former riding buddy, Elodie the miniature schnauzer, in the basket in front of him.
Latest Comments
- LeadenSkies 18 min 21 sec ago
The collision investigator needs a lesson in basic English. The bus driver COULD have seen the poor lad, not would have seen....
- hawkinspeter 31 min 41 sec ago
She's He's not my Queen King and certainly has no ownership of our language!
- bensynnock 1 hour 23 min ago
I see a car go through a red light at almost every single cycle at every single junction. ...
- chrisonabike 2 hours 21 min ago
Also don't forget - Sustrans are a charity *....
- chrisonabike 2 hours 33 min ago
Yes ... but (just due to the large numbers of people affected) this likely would only proceed in the UK at a very ... cautious ... pace....
- EK Spinner 2 hours 51 min ago
Arsehole in the van not with standing, how did they manage to get a risk assessment allowing a race (a group not a TT) group to be competing on ...
- RafaDy 2 hours 46 min ago
I think reviewer completely missed the point here trying to match bike's name with what it can do. Ribble is namin git's bike weirdly, the...
- Moist von Lipwig 6 hours 12 min ago
Bit of googling gone wrong in the article - the JAT is the Junction Assessment Tool, the Joint Approval Team appears to be a coutner terrorism...
- HKR 7 hours 27 min ago
Can't believe that child threw his bike on the floor at the end of that. Young people today have no respect... ;))
Add new comment
94 comments
were these barges towed by pedestrians? or horses? Presumably the latter, making towpaths defacto bridleways
I would treat anywhere with traffic mixed with peds as primarily a foot path. The peds must be treated with priority as they are more vulnerable, especially when families with young kids are invovled.
Cyclists have the greater duty of care. But it is not about one group of users having primacy. Both need to respect each other. Once you start saying it's "primarily" for one group or the other that mutuality goes out the window. Are roads primarily for cyclists because they are more vulnerable than car drivers?
Nicmason says he will "probably ignore" the needs of cyclists, even those considerate enough to use a bell - this is how people behave when they believe they are more equal than the others.
I understand the priciple. It's just that when I'm riding the only thing I can control is my own behaviour. In addition, the peds aren't bringing any risk into the environment - that's me doing that. I can't ride expecting peds to modify their behaviour to mitigate my risk. Especially when kids are involved. It is up to me to mitigate the risks that I bring to the environment
[/quote]Cyclists have the greater duty of care. But it is not about one group of users having primacy. Both need to respect each other. Once you start saying it's "primarily" for one group or the other that mutuality goes out the window. Are roads primarily for cyclists because they are more vulnerable than car drivers? Nicmason says he will "probably ignore" the needs of cyclists, even those considerate enough to use a bell - this is how people behave when they believe they are more equal than the others.[/quote]
You aren't being "considerate" by using a bell you're trying to get someone on what may be a narrow path with deep water on one side out your way.
Well if it's a canal it wont be deep water, but fair enough they'll get wet if they fall in. But how do you propose a cyclist announces their presence to a pedestrian on a path in this situation then?
not all canals are as shallow as you might think. also they can be quite hard to get out of once youre in.
You've had a lot of experience of being pushed in when you refuse to move out of the way when reasonably requested ?
How do you know what Sriracha's (or anyone else's) intentions are when they ring their bell? If you assume that by ringing it they mean 'get out of my way', then that says more about you than the person ringing the bell.
There's the problem; you have already decided. Sort of where the word "prejudice" comes from. So no amount of consideration will work.
In point of fact, no, if there is no way past then I would not be trying to get past, so I would have no need of the bell. But where there is room, why would you not want to know I am there? How do you think this works?
Cyclists have the greater duty of care. But it is not about one group of users having primacy. Both need to respect each other. Once you start saying it's "primarily" for one group or the other that mutuality goes out the window. Are roads primarily for cyclists because they are more vulnerable than car drivers? Nicmason says he will "probably ignore" the needs of cyclists, even those considerate enough to use a bell - this is how people behave when they believe they are more equal than the others.[/quote]
You aren't being "considerate" by using a bell you're trying to get someone on what may be a narrow path with deep water on one side out your way.
[/quote]
or warning them that yo are about to pass, people get quite shocked when you glide past quietly with no warning.
From the Canal & River Trust website :
"2. Drop your pace
Pedestrians have priority on our towpaths so cyclists need to be ready to slow down. If you're in a hurry, consider using an alternative route for your journey."
Not sure whether this applies to all towpaths though. In another section of the site a cyclist describes how he was knocked off his bike by a pedestrian unexpectedly changing direction as he overtook. May be a polite ring or warning would have helped.
I accept that, even the pedestrian priority bit. But I don't accept that priority be interpreted as saying pedestrians ought simply to ignore cyclists, who therefore should not bother using their bell. The example of "Dave's story" shows exactly why trying to pass in stealth mode - of course slowly and where there is enough space, as here - is not a good idea, and using a bell (or voice) to make others aware of you is a good idea.
https://canalrivertrust.org.uk/news-and-views/our-campaigns/stay-kind-sl...
I think there is a huge middle ground between the extreme positions of "cyclists must travel at walking speed and never overtake a pedestrian" and "cyclists should give way to pedestrians and not expect to travel at round speeds
"Middle ground"??? Nobody comes here for the middle ground...!
Yes they do...
But the middle ground isn't as much fun. I mean - being sensible and reasonable...?
Really? I thought there was a lot of support for adopting primary around here.
I agree and that's fair enough on narrow sections. The problem comes with wider sections where peds are likely to spread across the whole path (so they can chat easily) so you need some way to get their attention to let you through. Most of the time I either use my bell which isn't very loud at all or a polite 'excuse me, can I get past please?'.
Agreed. Dinging and even calling out indicates that impatience, and "I don't want to slow down", and often gives people a fright - particularly old folks who often aren't aware of your presence until the last second.
In general policy should not dictate shared path unless there is plenty of room (ruling out many to paths).
I have no problem slowing to a walking pace until folk become aware of m presence. The time I lose is about equivalent to the time I lose waiting for a safe place to o/take cyclists whilst driving my car....
Ringing a bell / calling out sometimes (perhaps even often) indicates impatience, but it's a bit of a sweeping statement to say that it always does. I generally try to ring the bell a fair way back, precisely so that people are aware I'm there well in advance, and have time to react calmly, rather than under the pressure of suddenly realising I'm behind them. I'll still slow down to pass them, or wait at a reasonable distance behind if they don't make room, or if it's too tight to pass comfortably, and have no problem with that.
Sorry, should have qualified that it indicates even if that is not teh intention. Yes, doing it further back probably takes the edge off that interpretation.
I simply don't see how ringing a bicycle bell indicates impatience or signals "get out of my way", unless you intend it that way (by riding right up behind someone and leaning on your bell).
As a frequent pedestrian user of towpaths I dislike being taken by surprise by passing cyclists. Being unexpectedly passed by a cyclists always gives me a start, no matter that they may be going slowly.
Personally I just like to know in advance that a bicycle is going to pass me. Generally on a towpath there is enough room, so long as I am prepared for it. Otherwise there is always that startled sense of, "shit, I might nearly have stepped into their path".
I don't see how cyclists and pedestrians can reasonably share a path unless each is aware of the other's presence.
Unfortunately there are two ends to any communication - how it's intended, and how it's interpreted. The fact that you might not see how it can be construed as impatience, doesn't change the fact that it often is (rightly or wrongly).
Agreed that cyclists can't reasonably share a path with peds, they are two utterly different modes of transport, and it's not appropriate to mix them. Whenever they are mixed it should be the faster, higher risk mode that makes allowances for the slower lower risk mode.
Making allowances, or to put it another way, being considerate, isn't a one-way thing, though - both can show consideration to each other.
If you're a group of pedestrians spread all across the path, and a faster pedestrian comes up behind you, the considerate thing to do is to file out a bit and let them through. It's no different if it's a cyclist instead of a faster pedestrian. Obviously that doesn't give either the pedestrian or the cyclist the right to barge through or bully them out of the way if they don't move over, but that doesn't mean they shouldn't do so.
Cyclists should be prepared to make greater compromises when in a shared space, but that doesn't mean that compromise shouldn't be expected on all sides.
I don't think we are in disagreement on the substance. As a cyclist on a towpath, shared use path or promenade I am never on a mission of haste and fully accept that it is for me to make allowance for pedestrians.
I just don't see that as meaning I should be undetectectable to pedestrians, quite the opposite. I think it gives both parties greater comfort when both are mutually aware of each other and recognise the fact.
If I were walking faster than the pedestrian in front I would make my presence known, by saying "excuse me". As a cyclist I tend to use my bell instead, from a good distance, because they will want to know sooner, and they will want to know it's a cyclist. A bicycle bell tells that it's cyclist.
I carry on doing this because I find it works. Maybe because I only do so where I can see there is room to pass safely, so long as they are aware. Maybe that is the difference - ringing your bell where the pedestrian's only option is to jump into the canal is where some cyclists are going wrong. But if there is room to pass then doing so without notice is foolhardy.
We are constantly berated for not having a "bloody bell". Legally every new bike comes with one. Clearly they are not designed to communicate to car drivers.
As to what you say here:
There is no solution to the person who takes offence where none is given. Some people don't like cyclists, that much is clear. What I won't do is annoy those who have no problem with considerate cyclists in a futile attempt to appease the others.
Except it could just as easily mean "ding - I''m here, I'm going to pass you shortly, please don't make any sudden unexpected moves that will cause us to collide". Impossible to tell from a simple "ding", which is why it's a little frustrating to hear people moan about agressive bell-ringing.
Canal and River Trust is the landowner of the Tow Path. Access is Permissive for Walkers and Cyclists (ie at the permission of the landowner) except where there is a Definitive Right of Way that follows the towpath. The CRT are clear in that walkers have prioirty. If it is designated a Bridleway, walkers, horseriders and cyclists have a right to pass and repass (however these are rare). In this case cyclists are expected to give priority to all other users. Where a towpath is also a Public Footpath CRT give cyclists permission to cycle on the towpath which is their right as landowner. Interesting that the barge horse and tow rope take precidence over the user on foot etc according to Grand Junction Canal Co v Petty 1881. (The later comment re 4 mph has no basis in truth and the CRT are clear to avoid setting a limit).
"On our network the speed limit on most canals is 4 miles per hour"
https://canalrivertrust.org.uk/enjoy-the-waterways/boating/boating-blogs...
I think that's the limit ON the canal, i.e IN the water... no mention of a speed limit on canal paths apart from a plea to cyclists to slow down and stay kind... which I am. Always.
Pages