bells on bikes

mattsccm wrote:

A clicking freewheel means nothing to a non cyclist (or someone with a properly maintained or designed bike.

There's a vacancy for you in Vicenza.  Mr. Campagnolo clearly didn't know what he was doing when he designed the Record rear hub.

mattsccm wrote:

I refuse to accept that a bell cannot be mounted.

I don't see anyone above saying they can't mount a bell - just that they've had one in the past and it hasn't been of any use.

mattsccm wrote:

Bells do have the advantage that people know what they are. Well decent ones anyway, not the single ring pingers.

A skid indicates that something is stopping too fast. A clicking freewheel means nothing to a non cyclist (or someone with a properly maintained or designed bike. )  

A voice can work but is so often misued and isn't cycle specific.  A bell says that a bike is coming as a horn says that a motorised vehicle is there.

I refuse to accept that a bell cannot be mounted. They fit bars or the seat post, which is where mine is. . As you should be slowing when approaching a pedestrian or slower cyclist or what ever control isn't an issue. If it is then the riding speed should be slower still.

Of course bells don't work with the dimwits who are deliberatley deaf but remember the idea isn't to get them to move out of your way, its to tell them you are there.  What they do then depedns on their nature as a human.

Nothing of course will work for those with no genuine hearing or they complete antisocial morons who use headphones in public. Its not the wearing thats wrong, its the oblivion to the world around you.

To those who say "bells don't work". Of course they don't always but why should that be an objection to them?  NOTHING works in every situation does it but that never ever is the reason to stop using something.

Bells also have the disadvantage that they often involve you moving your hand away from the controls.

You can't change the volume of most of them.

You can't change/modulate what information they are conveying.

Using your voice doesn't really have those disadvantages, so why should bells be preferred to human voices?

hawkinspeter wrote:

mattsccm wrote:

Bells do have the advantage that people know what they are. Well decent ones anyway, not the single ring pingers.

A skid indicates that something is stopping too fast. A clicking freewheel means nothing to a non cyclist (or someone with a properly maintained or designed bike. )  

A voice can work but is so often misued and isn't cycle specific.  A bell says that a bike is coming as a horn says that a motorised vehicle is there.

I refuse to accept that a bell cannot be mounted. They fit bars or the seat post, which is where mine is. . As you should be slowing when approaching a pedestrian or slower cyclist or what ever control isn't an issue. If it is then the riding speed should be slower still.

Of course bells don't work with the dimwits who are deliberatley deaf but remember the idea isn't to get them to move out of your way, its to tell them you are there.  What they do then depedns on their nature as a human.

Nothing of course will work for those with no genuine hearing or they complete antisocial morons who use headphones in public. Its not the wearing thats wrong, its the oblivion to the world around you.

To those who say "bells don't work". Of course they don't always but why should that be an objection to them?  NOTHING works in every situation does it but that never ever is the reason to stop using something.

Bells also have the disadvantage that they often involve you moving your hand away from the controls.

You can't change the volume of most of them.

You can't change/modulate what information they are conveying.

Using your voice doesn't really have those disadvantages, so why should bells be preferred to human voices?

Indicating also involves moving your hands away from the controls, but this is another important safety manouvre to alert others

I can modulate my bell by the distance that I pull the hammer back, the number and frequency of the pings

Relying onveying of information is not always good, I witnessed a crash a month or so ago where a cyclist anounced "on your left" and the pedestrian took this to mean move to your left and they collided.

Using your voice can have disadvantages of blending in to the other background noise and, if you have been cycling hard, the inability to use it or increase the volume significantly.

Also in my experience you can use a bell to alert at a greater distance. I have also been safely alerted of oncoming bikes round a blind bend by bell several times, never by someone giving istructions that they are aproaching!

I really don't get this being a great debate, it's not like disc brakes vs rim brakes or helmet vs no helmet. In the arguement of Voice vs Bell, if you have a bell that does not stop you using your voice. You can actually use both, unlike the other arguements listed where it's and either/or situation (at any one time).

ClubSmed wrote:

hawkinspeter wrote:

mattsccm wrote:

Bells do have the advantage that people know what they are. Well decent ones anyway, not the single ring pingers.

A skid indicates that something is stopping too fast. A clicking freewheel means nothing to a non cyclist (or someone with a properly maintained or designed bike. )  

A voice can work but is so often misued and isn't cycle specific.  A bell says that a bike is coming as a horn says that a motorised vehicle is there.

I refuse to accept that a bell cannot be mounted. They fit bars or the seat post, which is where mine is. . As you should be slowing when approaching a pedestrian or slower cyclist or what ever control isn't an issue. If it is then the riding speed should be slower still.

Of course bells don't work with the dimwits who are deliberatley deaf but remember the idea isn't to get them to move out of your way, its to tell them you are there.  What they do then depedns on their nature as a human.

Nothing of course will work for those with no genuine hearing or they complete antisocial morons who use headphones in public. Its not the wearing thats wrong, its the oblivion to the world around you.

To those who say "bells don't work". Of course they don't always but why should that be an objection to them?  NOTHING works in every situation does it but that never ever is the reason to stop using something.

Bells also have the disadvantage that they often involve you moving your hand away from the controls.

You can't change the volume of most of them.

You can't change/modulate what information they are conveying.

Using your voice doesn't really have those disadvantages, so why should bells be preferred to human voices?

Indicating also involves moving your hands away from the controls, but this is another important safety manouvre to alert others

I can modulate my bell by the distance that I pull the hammer back, the number and frequency of the pings

Relying onveying of information is not always good, I witnessed a crash a month or so ago where a cyclist anounced "on your left" and the pedestrian took this to mean move to your left and they collided.

Using your voice can have disadvantages of blending in to the other background noise and, if you have been cycling hard, the inability to use it or increase the volume significantly.

Also in my experience you can use a bell to alert at a greater distance. I have also been safely alerted of oncoming bikes round a blind bend by bell several times, never by someone giving istructions that they are aproaching!

I really don't get this being a great debate, it's not like disc brakes vs rim brakes or helmet vs no helmet. In the arguement of Voice vs Bell, if you have a bell that does not stop you using your voice. You can actually use both, unlike the other arguements listed where it's and either/or situation (at any one time).

If you have to take your hand off the steering wheel to indicate, your car has been designed badly, otherwise which controls are you referring to?

The dude that crashed after shouting "on your left" would probably have crashed with a bell too, method of warning wasn't the contributing factor. Not being able to stop was.

I am often belled by cyclists on the tow path as they fly through, I perceive them as being demanding in that there is a ring and the rider expects to come through. There is no disputing that it's a bike though, and often coming through at speed.

Personally I don't care if it's a bell or an audible warning, if it's a shared path, share it.

I give an audible warning, moderate speed and pass to the tones of a cheery "thanks" or a wave, very few dickheads out there these days. But like everywhere, they exist.

The knobends are those who pass in absolute silence, often fully lycraed up, so not casual riders/peeps on bikes, but cyclists (as we so often like to differentiate ourselves)

don simon wrote:

ClubSmed wrote:

Indicating also involves moving your hands away from the controls, but this is another important safety manouvre to alert others

If you have to take your hand off the steering wheel to indicate, your car has been designed badly, otherwise which controls are you referring to?

I assume he meant indicating on your bike, i.e. sticking your arm out, which obviously does remove your hands from the controls.

Mark B wrote:

don simon wrote:

ClubSmed wrote:

Indicating also involves moving your hands away from the controls, but this is another important safety manouvre to alert others

If you have to take your hand off the steering wheel to indicate, your car has been designed badly, otherwise which controls are you referring to?

I assume he meant indicating on your bike, i.e. sticking your arm out, which obviously does remove your hands from the controls.

 

fair enough,

don simon wrote:

ClubSmed wrote:

hawkinspeter wrote:

mattsccm wrote:

Bells do have the advantage that people know what they are. Well decent ones anyway, not the single ring pingers.

A skid indicates that something is stopping too fast. A clicking freewheel means nothing to a non cyclist (or someone with a properly maintained or designed bike. )  

A voice can work but is so often misued and isn't cycle specific.  A bell says that a bike is coming as a horn says that a motorised vehicle is there.

I refuse to accept that a bell cannot be mounted. They fit bars or the seat post, which is where mine is. . As you should be slowing when approaching a pedestrian or slower cyclist or what ever control isn't an issue. If it is then the riding speed should be slower still.

Of course bells don't work with the dimwits who are deliberatley deaf but remember the idea isn't to get them to move out of your way, its to tell them you are there.  What they do then depedns on their nature as a human.

Nothing of course will work for those with no genuine hearing or they complete antisocial morons who use headphones in public. Its not the wearing thats wrong, its the oblivion to the world around you.

To those who say "bells don't work". Of course they don't always but why should that be an objection to them?  NOTHING works in every situation does it but that never ever is the reason to stop using something.

Bells also have the disadvantage that they often involve you moving your hand away from the controls.

You can't change the volume of most of them.

You can't change/modulate what information they are conveying.

Using your voice doesn't really have those disadvantages, so why should bells be preferred to human voices?

Indicating also involves moving your hands away from the controls, but this is another important safety manouvre to alert others

I can modulate my bell by the distance that I pull the hammer back, the number and frequency of the pings

Relying onveying of information is not always good, I witnessed a crash a month or so ago where a cyclist anounced "on your left" and the pedestrian took this to mean move to your left and they collided.

Using your voice can have disadvantages of blending in to the other background noise and, if you have been cycling hard, the inability to use it or increase the volume significantly.

Also in my experience you can use a bell to alert at a greater distance. I have also been safely alerted of oncoming bikes round a blind bend by bell several times, never by someone giving istructions that they are aproaching!

I really don't get this being a great debate, it's not like disc brakes vs rim brakes or helmet vs no helmet. In the arguement of Voice vs Bell, if you have a bell that does not stop you using your voice. You can actually use both, unlike the other arguements listed where it's and either/or situation (at any one time).

If you have to take your hand off the steering wheel to indicate, your car has been designed badly, otherwise which controls are you referring to?

The dude that crashed after shouting "on your left" would probably have crashed with a bell too, method of warning wasn't the contributing factor. Not being able to stop was.

I am often belled by cyclists on the tow path as they fly through, I perceive them as being demanding in that there is a ring and the rider expects to come through. There is no disputing that it's a bike though, and often coming through at speed.

Personally I don't care if it's a bell or an audible warning, if it's a shared path, share it.

I give an audible warning, moderate speed and pass to the tones of a cheery "thanks" or a wave, very few dickheads out there these days. But like everywhere, they exist.

The knobends are those who pass in absolute silence, often fully lycraed up, so not casual riders/peeps on bikes, but cyclists (as we so often like to differentiate ourselves)

I was talking about indicating on a bicycle, sorry if that was not obvious.

I believe that if the person that shouted "on your left" had a bell then they would have been able to alert the pedestrian earlier. I believe that bells can be heard and recognised at a greater distance. This would have enabled the pedestrian to move to one side and the cyclist plenty of time to go around them on the other side. In my experience, most of the time, if you are close enough to give instruction then you probably don't have enough time to react to what you are not expecting.

How do cyclists without a bell alert people that they are coming round a blind corner?

mattsccm wrote:

Bells do have the advantage that people know what they are. Well decent ones anyway, not the single ring pingers.

 

I refuse to accept that a bell cannot be mounted. They fit bars or the seat post, which is where mine is. . As you should be slowing when approaching a pedestrian or slower cyclist or what ever control isn't an issue. If it is then the riding speed should be slower still.

My Brompton has a single ring pinger. I'm sure people recognise it as a bike bell.

Do you really have a bell on the seatpost ?? That sounds dangerous.

If you're on a shared use path then you have to accept that you can't ride fast. Walkers have as much right as you do and you'd be foolish to speed past any kind of dog. I'm always slower and covering the brakes.

Just a bit of understanding from everyone makes for a much more pleasant day I find. 

fenix wrote:

If you're on a shared use path then you have to accept that you can't ride fast. Walkers have as much right as you do and you'd be foolish to speed past any kind of dog. I'm always slower and covering the brakes.

 

Just a bit of understanding from everyone makes for a much more pleasant day I find. 

On a shared use path, walkers can be considered to have more rights than cyclists in that they have priority. That even applies to split-use paths where there's a pedestrian and cyclist lane - even when the pedestrian is on the wrong side.

With dogs, there is a clear legal responsibility for the owner to keep it under control in shared spaces, but you're right about being cautious around them as they can be so unpredictable (also, I love dogs so wouldn't want to hurt them - people, less so).

mattsccm wrote:

I refuse to accept that a bell cannot be mounted. They fit bars or the seat post, which is where mine is. . As you should be slowing when approaching a pedestrian or slower cyclist or what ever control isn't an issue. If it is then the riding speed should be slower still.

I challenge you to fit one to a handcycle.

The bars rotate or aren't present, the seat post either doesn't exist or is behind my back with a metal plate between it and me, and removing my hands from my controls isn't as simple as it is for you; I need to then catch my controls again, since they move with the cranks.

Best I've managed is a Hornit, with the button wire loomed into my brake and gear cables - but they're not exactly friendly sounding. Lovely and loud, though, they go straight through headphones.

hawkinspeter wrote:

Sometimes it can be tricky to spot pedestrians if they're just over the brow of a hill, so maybe it'd be more thoughtful if they were to carry 6 foot poles with a flag on top to make them easier to spot.

That's what's used by those 4x4 hooligans out in the desert/dunes.

don simon wrote:

hawkinspeter wrote:

Sometimes it can be tricky to spot pedestrians if they're just over the brow of a hill, so maybe it'd be more thoughtful if they were to carry 6 foot poles with a flag on top to make them easier to spot.

That's what's used by those 4x4 hooligans out in the desert/dunes.

I don't care what 16 hooligans do, this is a new safety initiative.

vonhelmet wrote:

Dogs on shared use paths are the bane of my commute. On ten metres of lead, if they’re on a lead at all. All is fine if the dog or owner has half a brain, but there’s plenty with barely that between them.

My friend who cycles to do her care work was attacked by a dog off its leash in the common (where you are allowed to cycle) last month and knocked her over. Not only injured with a badly bruised leg, arm, hand but she banged her head too with a cut on her forehead, she was really upset too and called me as she just wanted someone to be with her.

Dog owner did fuck all but shrug shoulders, didn't help her at all, but people don't want to talk about these incidents where dog owners just let them run free without any consideration for others!

BehindTheBikesheds wrote:

vonhelmet wrote:

Dogs on shared use paths are the bane of my commute. On ten metres of lead, if they’re on a lead at all. All is fine if the dog or owner has half a brain, but there’s plenty with barely that between them.

My friend who cycles to do her care work was attacked by a dog off its leash in the common (where you are allowed to cycle) last month and knocked her over. Not only injured with a badly bruised leg, arm, hand but she banged her head too with a cut on her forehead, she was really upset too and called me as she just wanted someone to be with her.

Dog owner did fuck all but shrug shoulders, didn't help her at all, but people don't want to talk about these incidents where dog owners just let them run free without any consideration for others!

 

"Were you there, are you taking the side of someone without any evidence, you know which is exactly what the police don't do?

Too many bullshit stories about how a cyclist did this and that have made me and many others wary of accepting one persons version of events with no other witness/other party chiming in."

Copyright BehindTheBikesheds 2018

Double standards my friend.

vonhelmet wrote:

Dogs on shared use paths are the bane of my commute. On ten metres of lead, if they’re on a lead at all. All is fine if the dog or owner has half a brain, but there’s plenty with barely that between them.

Highway Code Rule 56. Keep it (the dog) on a short lead when walking on ... path shared with cyclists or horse riders.
No mention of whether the cyclists or horse riders need their bikes or horses with then at the time.