Support road.cc

Like this site? Help us to make it better.

New Forest MP calls for mandatory bike bells

Julian Lewis says people should be able to go about their business “without fear of being mown down by silent rogue cyclists"...

Conservative MP Julian Lewis says that cyclists are putting pedestrians at risk “because they can’t be bothered to fit a bell.” The New Forest East MP says all cyclists should be obliged to have one fitted. (The road.cc ‘stay awesome’ bell is a tenner, by the way.)

Speaking in the House of Commons yesterday, Lewis – who  in 2014 called for regulation of sportives and limits on numbers of participants – said: “Speeding cyclists on rural roads in the New Forest are putting residents and other pedestrians at risk, simply because they cannot be bothered to fit a bell on their bikes so that they can warn pedestrians of their approach.

“When I wrote to a Transport Minister about this issue 18 months ago, he replied: ‘Through rule 66 of the Highway Code we recommend that a bell is fitted to a bicycle and used as necessary. Under current regulations the cyclist is not compelled to keep the bell fitted after the bicycle has been purchased. We have no plans to make bells compulsory as this would be difficult to enforce.’”

Lewis described the reply as “insipid” and asked for a statement from the government so that his constituents could “go about their business without fear of being mown down by silent road cyclists?”

Commons Leader Andrea Leadsom urged Mr Lewis to call a Commons debate on the issue.

In 2011, Leadsom used the ten-minute rule to introduce a Dangerous and Reckless Cycling (Offences) Bill, which among other things called for the introduction of a new offence of causing death by dangerous cycling, with a proposed maximum penalty of 14 years’ imprisonment.

Part of the motivation for the bill was the case of 17-year-old Rhiannon Bennett, who died from head injuries following a collision with a cyclist in Buckingham in 2008.

The cyclist in that case was fined £2,200 after being convicted of dangerous cycling, although a police officer involved in the case told the BBC that officers believed the teenager was standing on the road, rather than the pavement, when the collision took place.

Responding to Lewis’s comments, Duncan Dollimore, Cycling UK’s head of campaigns, said: "Mr Lewis does seem rather selective with his road safety concerns. Back in 2014 he spoke out in a Westminster debate to warn about the danger cyclists presented to livestock in the New Forest, ignoring the evidence showing there had been no recorded instances of an animal killed or injured in an incident involving a cyclist in 15 years, but numerous incidents involving motor vehicles.

"This time it's speeding cyclists without bells that concerns him, but not a word about speeding drivers or the evidence about what presents the greatest risk.

"If Mr Lewis is truly concerned about road safety in the New Forest he could focus his attention on the collision blackspot in his own constituency, the unsafe junction at Ipley Cross, where cyclists Kieran Dix and Mark Brummell have both lost their lives in recent years, with several other collisions reported to the police."

Alex has written for more cricket publications than the rest of the road.cc team combined. Despite the apparent evidence of this picture, he doesn't especially like cake.

Add new comment

74 comments

Avatar
Hirsute | 5 years ago
1 like

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).

Avatar
Legs_Eleven_Wor... replied to Hirsute | 5 years ago
0 likes

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…

Avatar
Legs_Eleven_Wor... replied to Hirsute | 5 years ago
0 likes

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…

Avatar
johnnybaloney | 5 years ago
0 likes

bike.owner wrote:

If you are trying to give the impression of utter stupidity, then may I be the first to congratulate you on your resounding success.

I mentioned I had a bell to comply with legislation. I also mentioned I never use it, but that is because I simply don't need to use it.

Lol! So fuming, careful before your lid pops. A comment from someone who installed a bell in a way that renders it useless in order to secure, as he thinks, a payout from the insurer. And he calls other people stupid...

Any comments on my punctuation?

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.

hawkinspeter wrote:

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-poli...

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.

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.

ConcordeCX wrote:

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'?

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?

Avatar
Mungecrundle replied to johnnybaloney | 5 years ago
2 likes
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.

Avatar
hawkinspeter replied to johnnybaloney | 5 years ago
1 like

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).

Avatar
ConcordeCX replied to johnnybaloney | 5 years ago
3 likes

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?

 

Avatar
johnnybaloney | 5 years ago
0 likes

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.

brooksby wrote:

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

That's what cyclists say about cars, so you should be able to understand the pedestrians' view.

bike.owner wrote:

However, I put mine on the back of the stem. Still never use it, but it is out of the way:

Well done, you're such a rebel. Did you also remove the catalyst converter from your car just to show 'em? Or the breaks from your bike like that guy who was in the news not long ago?

zero_trooper wrote:

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

Yes, really. Just because you know that you need to push the lever to make it sound doesn't mean you know how and when to use it. Just look up the poster above who claimed it was impossible to use the breaks and the bell at the same time, on a cycling forum. It's quite telling.

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?

Avatar
Canyon48 replied to johnnybaloney | 5 years ago
3 likes

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*

Avatar
Mungecrundle replied to johnnybaloney | 5 years ago
1 like
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.

Avatar
hawkinspeter replied to johnnybaloney | 5 years ago
0 likes

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.

Avatar
ConcordeCX replied to johnnybaloney | 5 years ago
7 likes

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/

Avatar
Canyon48 replied to ConcordeCX | 5 years ago
2 likes

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

Avatar
Canyon48 | 5 years ago
1 like

Am I totally missing the point here, re my previous comment; having a voice makes a bell superfluous.

Or maybe that just makes too much sense seeing as it's such a simple easy solution.

Avatar
hawkinspeter | 5 years ago
1 like

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

Avatar
ConcordeCX replied to hawkinspeter | 5 years ago
5 likes

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.

 

Avatar
BehindTheBikesheds replied to ConcordeCX | 5 years ago
0 likes

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.

 

Avatar
BBB | 5 years ago
4 likes

FFS

The whole thing has absolutely nothing to do with bells and we shouldn't get involved in any petty"debates" and waste our time replying to bellends like johnnybaloney who's completely missing a wider picture.

The Bell End Gate is just another attack on New Forest cyclists who as we know do speeding but at the same time hold the traffic, urinate and poo on the side of roads, run over walkers, spook livestock and spoil tranquality of the area.

Compare the way newspapers, politicians and local authorities reffer to car drivers and cyclists, particularily in context of the mindless animal carnage (mostly locals), road accidents and pollution (Lyndhurst).

The bias and prejudice is evident.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Avatar
johnnybaloney replied to BBB | 5 years ago
1 like

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.

Avatar
burtthebike replied to johnnybaloney | 5 years ago
1 like

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.

Avatar
ConcordeCX replied to burtthebike | 5 years ago
1 like

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

 

Avatar
Mungecrundle | 5 years ago
0 likes

The fundamental problem here is the complete lack of reliable data which has to be the basis for any kind of legislation that will be of any practical benefit. By lack of data I mean that the numbers of pedestrians injured or killed by cyclists is too small for any kind of statistical analysis. From this very tiny dataset you would have to filter down by location type (road, shared use path, footpath etc), record whether the bike was fitted with a bell, whether it was used, whether another type of audible warning was given and whether the pedestrian was able to hear such a warning e.g wearing headphones.

Even were you able to do this with enough data over many years, you are still missing the elephant in the room that, as a pedestrian, being seriously hurt by an errant cyclist is hundreds of times less likely than being hurt by an errant motorist.

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. When walking in the forest it would be nice to feel that your kids can run around with a bit more freedom while being safe from traffic, and I'm sure that there are just enough arseholes on bicycles to spoil that. Having a bell attached won't make such people any less antisocial, it just means that they are an arsehole on a bicycle with a bell.

My preffered method when coming up behind horses or pedestrians is to call 'Cycle back' from a good distance so as not to be a surprise, then hang back until they get themselves organised and it is safe to pass. I also appreciate a similar courtesy beep from motorists on country roads. You cannot always hear them approaching from behind, especially when windy, and although it is entirely their responsibility to ensure they pass only when safe, I'd rather know that they were there.

Avatar
johnnybaloney | 5 years ago
0 likes

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.

Avatar
ConcordeCX replied to johnnybaloney | 5 years ago
2 likes

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.

Avatar
brooksby replied to johnnybaloney | 5 years ago
2 likes

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...

Avatar
zero_trooper replied to johnnybaloney | 5 years ago
0 likes

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>

Avatar
Hirsute replied to johnnybaloney | 5 years ago
2 likes

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.

Avatar
FluffyKittenofT... replied to johnnybaloney | 5 years ago
1 like

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).

 

Avatar
kingleo | 5 years ago
0 likes

How can I brake with two hands and ring a bell at the same time? - I always shout loudly careful! careful! when a pedestrian walks out into the road in front me without looking, brake with hard with two hands and try to swerve around them.

Avatar
johnnybaloney replied to kingleo | 5 years ago
0 likes

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.

Pages

Latest Comments