- 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 19 min 38 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 32 min 58 sec ago
She's He's not my Queen King and certainly has no ownership of our language!
- bensynnock 1 hour 24 min ago
I see a car go through a red light at almost every single cycle at every single junction. ...
- chrisonabike 2 hours 23 min ago
Also don't forget - Sustrans are a charity *....
- chrisonabike 2 hours 34 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 52 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 47 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 13 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 28 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
There is also a requirement to check your wash, so 3 mph is the mode value. Also when working out how far you can go, the measure is 3 lock miles an hour.
Does that mean you have to fit mudguards when cycling on the towpath?
What you really need is one that also shouts 'Division!' when you ring it.
Though on second thoughts, that might just exacerbate the problem of people scattering to both sides of the path...
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.”
Fucking hell. Don't these clowns know that EVERY country that has introduced bicycle licensing has chinned it off because it's a waste of time?
I used to defend the Lords because, unlike the Commons, I thought it had people that actually knew about stuff.
I shouted at a car that reversed out of a side road nearly knocking me off. I then heard a squeal of tyres and thought "nahhhh it can't be" but turned left just in case. The car then chased me for several blocks, I ended up riding on the pavement as there was some scaffolding for protection. The car mounted the pavement and blocked me off. They then threatened me, called me a c*nt and demanded an apology for shouting at them. Good times!
Moral is you don't know when you come across a physco until it's too late. If only I'd had a bell.
You have clearly never experienced average pedestrian behaviour in London. I lose count on a daily basis of the number willing to step off the pavement and into the road without so much as a glance. They cannot follow the steps they were taught as a 5 year old. Stop. Look. Listen. Then step out.
So when I shout, it's to get these clowns to step back onto the pavement. Perhaps I shouldnt bother and let Darwinism take its course! Too many of them seem to "look" with their ears. Unfortunately bikes, and increasingly delivery vans from the like of UPS make no sound so assuming you can take a step or two into the road before looking is going to get an increasing number of people killed.
What exactly are you expecting pedestrians to do when you use your bell or yell?
Should we immediately jump to the side of the path, and allow you to breeze past unimpeded?
Let’s say you’re out for a ride with some friends on a narrow road, you’re riding two abreast as you are perfectly entitled to do, a motorist approaches you from behind. The road isn’t wide enough for the motorist to pass safely. Do you immediately pull over and allow the motorist to pass (there is no legal requirement for you to do so), or do you expect the motorist to wait patiently until it's safe for them to pass, as they would have to do for any other sort of traffic? The motorist beeps their horn or yells from their car. Do you now immediately pull over to the side of the road to allow them to pass with a friendly wave? or something else?
It's interesting to see the language used here to talk about pedestrians “getting in the way” or “holding cyclists up” is the same type of language motorists use to complain about cyclists.
And complaints about pedestrians wearing headphones. There was a story on this site not so long ago about motorist complaining about cyclists wearing headphones and not being able to hear approaching traffic, and the consensus from the cyclists here was that, if motorists passed cyclists safely with due respect, it makes no difference if the cyclist is wearing headphones or not. The same applies to pedestrians. Treat pedestrians in the way you would like motorists to treat you. Slow down, and pass leaving plenty of room, if there isn't enough room to pass safely wait until there is.
Let me ask, what is the pedestrian expecting when I don't use my bell?
Nothing - because they didn't know I was there.
That's why I use my bell.
Exactly what they would do if a pedestrian was coming the other way or a jogger overtaking, just make room to pass - there usually always is space to do so safely.
I can't think of a time when I've been out walking and had joggers bunching up behind me, or a stand-off with a parent & pushchair.
You are studiously ignoring the fundamental difference between roads and shared use footpath/cycleways ... most roads have lanes running in opposite directions and an expectation that you will stay, for the most part) in the lane running in the direction you are driving/cycling.
Shared use paths don't have that, and groups of pedestrians can (and frequently do) spread out across the whole width.
When driving on the road there is a reasonable expectation that there will be a break in the traffic coming in the other direction that allows for you to pull into the other lane and overtake a slower moving vehicle. That does not apply on a shared use path without lane restrictions.
That's why it is not the same thing.
> 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.”
A better question is 'what assessment they have made of any hazards that arise when cyclists
fail tomake use of bicycle bells.'Before ringing a bell, the hazards are a pretty much a known quantity. The second you ring a bell, that all changes -
* has anyone heard it?
* will they do anything?
* will their reaction be immediate, or will it take 5 seconds for the signal to pass from the ears to brain and then to the feet?
* will their reaction be final, or will they decide at the last second that although they have now moved to one side of the path, they actually want to be on the other side of the path, so they'll move there now, without looking.
* if there is more than one person, will their reactions be the same/coordinated?
* will they consider the use of the bell to be the considerate thoughtful action that it is - or will they consider it an act of aggression?
I tried a bell but it lasted very little time before it broke and it was useless. I prefer to keep my hands on my brakes so I can stop before hitting someone wandering gaily into the shared use lane, and I generally call out "Excuse me!" or "on your right!" The problem these days is so many people constantly have headphones in and can't hear bell or shout, or are so engaged on their phone they're paying no attention to what's going on around them anyway. And half the time the shout just gets the person in your way stopping dead in the centre of the path and looking around in surprise. Shared-use paths are not really ideal for pedestrians or cyclists, let's face it.
Joanne, I agree with exactly what you are saying about preferring to shout excuse me or similar on a shared use path, or in a lot of cases where there is sufficient room do nothing but leave space because shouting can spook pedestrians and they act unpredictably.
As you also say there is a very disturbing trend for people to walk aimlessly with headphones on, and more and more are using active noise cancelling headphones which means no matter how loud your bell or voice is the pedestrian is blisfully unaware of your approach. You could bellow at the top of your lungs and they wouldn't hear you.
There are also a militant core of DILLIGAF pedestrians who use shared use paths that simply will not move out of the way even if they are walking straight towards you. Tends to be family groups or kids who take up the whole width of the path and try to ignore the fact that you are there, then vocally complain when you don't move for them
I slow down to below ~10 MPH to pass pedestrians, and ring my bell unless they've already looked back and noticed me, but I do sometimes encounter a full-width group of DILIIGAF coming towards me. If I'm in a rush, I go around them on the grass or gravel, but a few times I've just stopped before getting to them, forcing them to find their way around me. Never been confronted either, they don't even make eye contact as they go around. I do the same thing while walking, too.
So buy a better one.
So buy this one:
https://road.cc/content/review/252403-trigger-bell-safer-bike-bell
I always shout "bike back" or "runner back" and do it as far back as I can so that people have plenty of time, and space, to get themselves out of the way. This usually works very well for everybody, nobody jumping out of their skins etcetera. On the rare occasion when someone refuses to yield I just live with it ; unless they are coming towards me, in which case I just stop - this allows them to go around me in a safe manner.
I prefer a "Good (insert relavent time of day)", and a bit of patience.
Once used a bell on a shared use path to alert a dog walker of my presence. The dog then chased after me, with the owner shouting "those f***ing bells always sets him off".
Approaching a couple walking their dog last on a shared path last week I shouted a warning. The couple ignored me and the dog trotted over to say hello, forcing me to take even more evasive action. I did tell the couple that as it was a shared path the dog should be on a lead. They looked perplexed and went to argue but by then I was gone. I wish I'd stayed to argue Rule 56 with them.
Time to invoke the spirit of Richard Ballantine
A little "ding ding" is limited use anyway. It doesn't tell pedestrians on shared paths what side you are approaching from.
It is hard to hear over any background noise e.g. traffic, headphones, running water.
Some people invariably take it as an aggressive "get out my way" and respond accordingly.
I have a bell, but prefer to use my voice where possible.
I have a bell, but prefer to use my voice where possible
Agreed, except I haven't got a bell.
I found a little "ding ding" to be completely useless in alerting joggers with earphones in of my presence. I took the bell off.
That came a bit late for Charlie Alliston.
some rather dodgy claims in that piece, particularly about the widower of the deceased pedestrian. But the general gist of this - that this was a miscarriage of justice and completely out of propertion to the coverage and standards of justice as they apply to killer motorists - is spot on. It doesn't cover another aspect that I found particularly troubling, which was the standard of evidence. If I recall, the police submitted a video to show that slowing down a fixie using your legs is way less efficient than 'normal' braking - but the comparison was between a very inexpereinced rider using a fixie versus a mountain bike with hydraulic disk brakes. It was amazing to me that such evidence was allowed unchallenged in court.
You're right, a bit barmy on reading the full article. Removed the link, as I'm not a chemtrail tin foil hat merchant! As with most conspiracy nonsense, the grain of truth is in there somewhere I expect.
I can't comment on the accuracy of his reporting in that piece, but looking around the rest of his output I'd take it with a considerable pinch of salt. Of course, I would say that as I'm being paid by the Anglo-American fascist oil/car/PR machine which apparently controls the world's media.
See my reply to Little Onion above.
"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.”
Isn't it fortunate that the biggest problem facing us is the use of bells by cyclists? The pandemic is completely under control, the economy isn't bombing because of Brexit and the PM isn't a liar. Maybe Lord Lexden should stick to history; there's plenty of that happening at the moment.
Good to see the sensible comments from most other lords and ladies.
Pages