Brisbane cyclists fined for riding without bells

antigee wrote:

a witty reminder from Port Melbourne Council (Victoria not Queensland)

 

 

I am so sorry... I'm trying really hard but I cannot see that slogan as anything other than some sort of euphemism...

brooksby wrote:

antigee wrote:

a witty reminder from Port Melbourne Council (Victoria not Queensland)

 

 

I am so sorry... I'm trying really hard but I cannot see that slogan as anything other than some sort of euphemism...

Reminds me of working in Nigeria where many trucks had the message "keep horning" painted on the tailboard.

So basically either the authorities concerns over cyclists safety is a smokescreen for discouraging cycling, or they are petrified of regilous communities.  Either a helmet protects your head in some accidents and it's a good idea to legislate that helmets must be worn by cyclists or it doesn't. It can't be that if you belong to a certain religious group then you miraculously have divine protection (despite what their religious books might say) and no longer need a helmet. Can you imagine how laughable a seatbelt law would be if people could opt out if they belonged to a religious group? (And lest anyone think I am anti helmet wearing, I'm not - worn one for nearly 30 years and having  completely destroyed one in a head-Tarmac impact at 45mph I am confident that there are some situations where it improves safety - I just don't see the Aussie legal  attitude towards cyclists as being part of a bigger picture which improves overall cycling safety). 

maldin wrote:

So basically either the authorities concerns over cyclists safety is a smokescreen for discouraging cycling, or they are petrified of regilous communities.  Either a helmet protects your head in some accidents and it's a good idea to legislate that helmets must be worn by cyclists or it doesn't. It can't be that if you belong to a certain religious group then you miraculously have divine protection (despite what their religious books might say) and no longer need a helmet. Can you imagine how laughable a seatbelt law would be if people could opt out if they belonged to a religious group? (And lest anyone think I am anti helmet wearing, I'm not - worn one for nearly 30 years and having  completely destroyed one in a head-Tarmac impact at 45mph I am confident that there are some situations where it improves safety - I just don't see the Aussie legal  attitude towards cyclists as being part of a bigger picture which improves overall cycling safety). 

It isn't that ridiculous, we do have a similar law here in the UK relating to motorcycles, rule 83 of the highway code states ...

"Rule 83

On all journeys, the rider and pillion passenger on a motorcycle, scooter or moped MUST wear a protective helmet. This does not apply to a follower of the Sikh religion while wearing a turban."

Quote:

If the intersection does not have traffic lights, you should:

• keep to the far left side of the road and move forward through the intersection
• pause and give way to motorists moving through the intersection
• when the road is clear, move forward across the road.

Ah, but did you know that when provided that is also the way that a bike box is supposed to be used in the UK, and technically it was (possibly still is*) illegal to not do so.  As originally envisioned, no one is supposed to cross the advanced stop line, cyclists can enter via the bike lane without crossing the ASL, hence why a bike lane is always provided even if it's just a little dashed triangle.

Fortunately, the Police decided rather quickly to ignore this, because it's absolutely bonkers and would literally have killed people underneath left turning lorries.  It fell into the same legal blackhole that used to require cabbies to carry a bale of hay and a million other things waiting to be remove from statute.

*DfT might have got around to removing the legistaltion, can't be arsed to check.

brooksby wrote:

 

Seems like the Aussie cycle campaigners should register as the church of the holy velocipede or something, and claim a religious exemption (I don't know: say their religion means they have to have a cool haircut or wear a fez or something )

 

That's not a bad idea. The Church of The Flying Spaghetti  monster had legal religous status in NZ so entirely possible.

brooksby wrote:

Wow - you have got to love those wacky Queenslanders

More seriously, AUS$117 for not having a bell seems a slightly disproportionate fine...

And I agree with multifrag above - most pedestrians see any sort of contact (whether a call, a horn, a bell) as somehow insulting them.  In my experience, I have had pedestrians actually look and then move into my way when I've rung a bell.

And finally, what is "giving a toot on a bell". I don't know about everyone else, but my bell goes "ping" (I suppose I could give a toot on a horn, if I had one).

I disagree: apart from tooting a bell. I'm with you there. The weirdo.

I use shared trails and towpaths on my commute, and a ring (and a 'thanks') when you're going past pedestrians and cyclists helps things go much more smoothly. I reckon I use it 10-20 times each way. Most of the time you're just asking them (and maybe their dogs, kids) to not be freaked out by you passing, not  shouting 'get out of my f-ing way').

I do see other cyclists who seem to be too awkward to even say 'excuse me' and just sidle up behind peds, stalking them, waiting for the ped to notice them, move over of their own accord, or for another cyclist to bell them. WTF is wrong with just being courteous or talking to someone?

It's easy to put this in the 'Oz war on cyclists' bucket, but we bang on about being looked after as more vulnerable vs vehicles; having a bell and using it on shared use paths seems to me to be extending the courtesy we'd expect to users more vulnerable than us. Aren't all new bikes over here supposed to be sold with bells?

Quote:

WTF is wrong with just being courteous or talking to someone?

You've kind of answered your own question of course. There is nothing wrong with being courteous and talking to people, hence there isn't a need for a bell. I don't have a bell and in that situation I call out and tell the pedestrian I'm behind them (if isn't get past at all) or that I'm passing left/right provided they have left some space on the shared path.  And I'm usually moving at jogging pace at this time, so they have plenty of time to react.  

maldin wrote:

Quote:

WTF is wrong with just being courteous or talking to someone?

You've kind of answered your own question of course. There is nothing wrong with being courteous and talking to people, hence there isn't a need for a bell. I don't have a bell and in that situation I call out and tell the pedestrian I'm behind them (if isn't get past at all) or that I'm passing left/right provided they have left some space on the shared path.  And I'm usually moving at jogging pace at this time, so they have plenty of time to react.  

If you haven't got a bell. I'd get pretty tired of that after a few miles of shared use paths with people heading largely in one direction, and then I'd buy a bell. My question wasn't 'what's wrong with a bell' and I'm not saying that a bell is the only option. It was a response to the suggestion that pedestrians don't respond well to communication - that's absolutely the opposite to my experience. Shout if you need to - I do it if there's dithering or lack of clarity about where I'm passing.

But given that this is being claimed to be a solution in response to cyclists colliding with pedestrians, I'd guess that, as a trend, the cyclists doing the colliding weren't all that great at being courteous or communicative.

davel wrote:

It's easy to put this in the 'Oz war on cyclists' bucket, but we bang on about being looked after as more vulnerable vs vehicles; having a bell and using it on shared use paths seems to me to be extending the courtesy we'd expect to users more vulnerable than us. Aren't all new bikes over here supposed to be sold with bells?

 

Though doesn't that just emphasise the point - that some pedestrians regard being 'pinged' at in much the same way that cyclists regard a motorist coming up behind and hooting their horn at them?

Anyway, this clearly does belong in the bizarre Australian war on physical-activity bucket. They are just weird down there, I have no plans to ever go there so let them get on with it.

FluffyKittenofTindalos wrote:

... some pedestrians regard being 'pinged' at in much the same way that cyclists regard a motorist coming up behind and hooting their horn at them?

Exactly. I use a bell to warn people that I'm approaching, or try to; I don't use it as "Get out of the way".

I have been shouted at for ringing a bell as I went widely around someone walking in a straight line; I have been shouted at for not ringing a bell as I went widely around someone.

I have been shouted at for scaring someone's dog by ringing a bell (dog was on a lead at the time); I have also been shouted at for not ringing a bell as I passed someone whose dog was on a lead.

(And don't get me started on pedestrians who walk or jog along the centre of a shared-use path, plugged into an iPod so they can't hear a damned thing (not even the bell or the "Excuse me"), and who then get angry as you finally get past and shout "You should ring your bell!" )

brooksby wrote:

FluffyKittenofTindalos wrote:

... some pedestrians regard being 'pinged' at in much the same way that cyclists regard a motorist coming up behind and hooting their horn at them?

Exactly. I use a bell to warn people that I'm approaching, or try to; I don't use it as "Get out of the way".

I have been shouted at for ringing a bell as I went widely around someone walking in a straight line; I have been shouted at for not ringing a bell as I went widely around someone.

I have been shouted at for scaring someone's dog by ringing a bell (dog was on a lead at the time); I have also been shouted at for not ringing a bell as I passed someone whose dog was on a lead.

(And don't get me started on pedestrians who walk or jog along the centre of a shared-use path, plugged into an iPod so they can't hear a damned thing (not even the bell or the "Excuse me"), and who then get angry as you finally get past and shout "You should ring your bell!" )

Perhaps some sort of amplified speech-synethisiser is the answer? Trigger it and it proclaims loudly "terribly sorry Sir or Madam, be aware of cyclist behind you" in the tones of, er...Brian Blessed? Tom Baker? Or maybe just gives a burst of the chorus of Queen's 'Bicycle'?
More research is needed, I think.

brooksby wrote:

FluffyKittenofTindalos wrote:

... some pedestrians regard being 'pinged' at in much the same way that cyclists regard a motorist coming up behind and hooting their horn at them?

Exactly. I use a bell to warn people that I'm approaching, or try to; I don't use it as "Get out of the way".

exactly we dont use the bell as a "Get out of the way" method, its simplest level is "hello Im here, you probably havent noticed that yet" yet Id say IME half the encounters on shared paths people react to a bell as the former and very rarely the latter,and not just negatively in terms of them moaning at you, theyll over react positively too and start apologising for being in your way and you cause them to move even more unpredictably, and after the first hundred times of saying no Im just letting you know Im here just carry on doing what you were doing but dont act shocked when I pass you, you get bored of it.

FluffyKittenofTindalos wrote:

davel wrote:

 

It's easy to put this in the 'Oz war on cyclists' bucket, but we bang on about being looked after as more vulnerable vs vehicles; having a bell and using it on shared use paths seems to me to be extending the courtesy we'd expect to users more vulnerable than us. Aren't all new bikes over here supposed to be sold with bells?

 

Though doesn't that just emphasise the point - that some pedestrians regard being 'pinged' at in much the same way that cyclists regard a motorist coming up behind and hooting their horn at them? Anyway, this clearly does belong in the bizarre Australian war on physical-activity bucket. They are just weird down there, I have no plans to ever go there so let them get on with it.

I'm not denying that there are some awkward twats who get offended easily but there are significant differences, which you know, I'm sure.

On a bike on a road, you're much more likely to hear a motor vehicle approaching due to its engine.  You're in the bit of the road with vehicles travelling in the same direction. Those vehicles will be moving relatively uniformly, and will be expected to pass on the right. 

As a pedestrian on a shared path, there are sometimes signed 'regs', and some stuff about common sense and courtesy,  but there's less segregation, and no established 'highway code', so there's less of a protocol to constrain your behaviour and positioning/direction. You might be moving across the path, or have dogs/kids that are all over it, or be moving past people who are zigzagging all over it. Such unpredictable behaviour is unsafe on off the road, but it's not unreasonable  on shared-use paths. It's also not unreasonable to expect that if there's a faster 'vehicle' approaching, it allows some tolerance of the more vulnerable user, and if in doubt, it makes its presence known.

The bell might not be a great solution to this problem, but still, some people will feel that whatever cyclists are asked to do, we're being persecuted.