[brooksby]

Has anyone seen *this*? – https://www.bikebiz.com/news/ding-dong

I’m glad that their Lordships have now completely sorted everything that’s important, so they have time to look at the little things…

Topic

[ClubSmed]

Jetmans Dad wrote:

A lot of the shared use paths around us are clearly marked with a pedestrian lane and a cycle, with the strict understanding that cyclists must stick to their lane while pedestrians can be in either or both. I still don’t see how that benefits anyone. 

It’s not a mandatory thing though much like bicycles and cycle lanes 

[brooksby]

hawkinspeter wrote:

PRSboy wrote:

Wouldn’t it make sense with shared paths to have some sort of protocol like on a 2 way road?  i.e. stay on the left unless overtaking.

Yes, that does make sense – to cyclists. As far as I know, there’s hardly any “walking” rules (apart from a couple of mentions in the Highway Code and they only seem to apply to road use) so it’s not reasonable to expect peds to follow protocol – especially kids. This is why shared use paths aren’t very good for cyclists wishing to go fast.

…and which is why it makes perfect sense for those self-driving transport pod things to be tested on shared-use paths 

[Jetmans Dad]

A lot of the shared use paths

A lot of the shared use paths around us are clearly marked with a pedestrian lane and a cycle, with the strict understanding that cyclists must stick to their lane while pedestrians can be in either or both. I still don’t see how that benefits anyone. 

[ClubSmed]

hawkinspeter wrote:

PRSboy wrote:

Wouldn’t it make sense with shared paths to have some sort of protocol like on a 2 way road?  i.e. stay on the left unless overtaking.

Yes, that does make sense – to cyclists. As far as I know, there’s hardly any “walking” rules (apart from a couple of mentions in the Highway Code and they only seem to apply to road use) so it’s not reasonable to expect peds to follow protocol – especially kids. This is why shared use paths aren’t very good for cyclists wishing to go fast.

I agree with the above, it would be good for cyclists and could be a good basis to build the rest of the highway code as people develop to other modes of transport.

It would be hard to ensure it is understood by:

• Children
• Tourists
• Animals
• People with Learning Dificulties
• People with disabilities

[hawkinspeter]

PRSboy wrote:

Wouldn’t it make sense with shared paths to have some sort of protocol like on a 2 way road?  i.e. stay on the left unless overtaking.

Yes, that does make sense – to cyclists. As far as I know, there’s hardly any “walking” rules (apart from a couple of mentions in the Highway Code and they only seem to apply to road use) so it’s not reasonable to expect peds to follow protocol – especially kids. This is why shared use paths aren’t very good for cyclists wishing to go fast.

[PRSboy]

Wouldn’t it make sense with

Wouldn’t it make sense with shared paths to have some sort of protocol like on a 2 way road?  i.e. stay on the left unless overtaking.

[ClubSmed]

Well I witnessed a crash

Well I witnessed a crash between a pedestrian and a cyclist on the way in this morning.

The cyclist came up behind the pedestrian, who was walking in the centre of the path, and said “on your right” on the approach.

The cyclist intended this as “I am passing on your right” but the pedestrian took it as “get on your right” and went to his right and straight into the path of the cyclist.

Yes you may be able to convey more information by voice, but only after you have got their attention and at close quarters (unless shouting). You would have to be going at walking pace or slower for this to actually be effective. I truly believe that if the cyclist had alerted to pedestrian to his presence earlier by means of a bell enabling him to move to one side it would not have mattered which side he went to as the cyclist would have had plenty of time to adjust accordingly.

[Natrix]

On shared use paths I prefer

On shared use paths I prefer to use my bell when walking, get some great reactions …….

[antigee]

brooksby wrote:

antigee wrote:

don’t forget signage…….

 

“Belling”? Is that even a real word?? 

google is your sort of bad friend on this one – be careful  

 

 

[riotgibbon]

but maybe people should

but maybe people should actually read the article quoted before getting too hot under the collar about it …

[riotgibbon]

I use a Knog Oi on my road

I use a Knog Oi on my road bikes, more than adequate. If it’s not loud enough, it can be because it’s not fitted properly, took a bit of tweaking on the tension to get just right

they’re so indespensible to me now that I find my thumb twitching in the supermarket when I’m pushing a trolley and someone walks into my path!  

[CygnusX1]

brooksby wrote:

antigee wrote:

don’t forget signage…….

 

“Belling”? Is that even a real word?? 

 

Yes, as in “the sales rep was bored in his hotel room so resorted to some furious belling  to the adult movie channel” 

[brooksby]

antigee wrote:

don’t forget signage…….

 

“Belling”? Is that even a real word?? 

[antigee]

don’t forget signage…….
 

don’t forget signage…….

 

[hawkinspeter]

kil0ran wrote:

Question is, where’s the best place to stick your bell?

 

Right or left side of the bars?

Stem mount?

Steerer mount?

Somewhere else?

RHS of the bars for me, so I can slow the bike with the rear brake (theory being that if you need to haul the front brake to avoid them, it’s probably too late anyway)

I’ve just ditched my Knog Oi bell (too quiet) that was on the left side of my bars and replaced it with a cheap stem spacer bell from Amazon. It’s nicely out of the way now and much louder.

Apart from shared paths, the only time I use a bell is navigating some blind corners going underneath a roundabout to warn oncoming cyclists/peds.

[Author]

Replies