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.”
74 thoughts on “New Forest MP calls for mandatory bike bells”
Bells are negated by most
Bells are negated by most pedestrians looking at phones and/or being plugged in.
Yorkshire wallet wrote:
This x 1000!! (though I’d also add other cyclists to this)
People are so unaware of the surroundings (or ingrossed in playing fetch with their dog on a cycle path!!!!!) that no bell seems to work all of the time. This, of course, won’t stop them having a go at you when you do manage to go past (though the sense of smugness when you point out that you did in fact ring your bell numerous times is fantastic).
Yorkshire wallet wrote:
…or selfishly being deaf.
If only cyclists themselves
If only cyclists themselves had some sort of built in noise generating device, they could literally open an “airway” and emit a few decibels of sound as simply as breathing, alerting others of their presence without ever needing to reach for a bell
Nick T wrote:
I think that would work quite well, especially when paired with the pedestrians’ own safety system of rotatirotating the hean occasionally and using a couple of things called eyes.
Nick T wrote:
This is very often seen as a sign of aggression unfortunately. No matter how cheerily you say ‘Hello’!
Actually, the most effective warning I use is a pair of poorly setup cantilever brakes. A sound no one can ignore.
Nick T wrote:
No need to fart! You could just shout.
I have a bell, it’s fun!
I have a bell, it’s fun! When the hammer is down and I can’t breathe it can be difficult to communicate to other riders on club runs. It’s difficult to do morse code with a bike bell so I developed my own system that only uses ‘dings’.
25 dings = slow down
26 dings = speed up
27 dings = disregard the last message
28 dings = my finger is getting tired
29 dings = car back
30 dings = car up
…etc
My clubmates ‘love’ it when I’m out LOL. I can tell from the way they’re always waving at me and playfully trying to get my bell/hit me.
On a (slightly) more serious note; for pedestrians I’ve found that my WI ENO ‘Trials’ freewheel is far more useful for alerting them to my presence, sounds like a swarm of angry bees 😛 Another similar way to get their attention is with a turbospoke. Sadly the build quality might not be so good because after we went into a cafe on a club run, I came out to find that it had completely mysteriously broken.
https://www.google.co.uk/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=3&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0ahUKEwjR0a2c0aDbAhVlDcAKHWuuBJ4QtwIIpAEwAg&url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.youtube.com%2Fwatch%3Fv%3DCDafMzo4HO8&usg=AOvVaw0H_IVbX3t7bNO9ZHS_bXvu
Richard1982 wrote:
I can attest to his liberal use of his bike bell but not that his club mates “love it”
As the summer is here a few
As the summer is here a few week early for once I’ve been out on the gravel tracks around the River Mersey. I don’t use a bell but have a rather loud freewheel. I often find small groups or even couples managing to walk in a fashion that they take up a 3 meter wide pathway. In the past I’ve found using a bell is an excuse not to have to slow down, and can cause people to panic and change direction in the oddest ways.
The levels of passive aggressive attitude from strollers and dog walkers is extraordinary, some of them are grabbing their already motionless dogs as I trundle by as if I am suddenly going to crush their baby with an anvil. I’ve had a few middle aged women mutter “Something, something, Bells.” Presumably they are talking about the whisky they will be having later as they seemed to hear me fine. When I do manage to get close enough they they haven’t noticed, a polite “Excuse me” normally works.
I really don’t recognise this “Mown down by rogue cyclists” bit. I am not going to intentionally crash into a pedestrian. I would get hurt myself as I don’t wear a two tonne metal box as protection. How many people called Margaret are being hit by these rogues, or is it just a phantom fear talking? Statistics please.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Whilst I’m on about these towpaths, the very same demographic when riding a bike seem to have no awareness of what to do when passing others. I’ve been merrily cycling along a towpath, when I see someone approaching on a bike so I crab left a bit, they then do the same, I go a bit further left. A couple of times I’ve snapped back right at the last moment, but there isn’t always time for that, so all of a sudden we are both at a dead stop on the left of the path. I know it might be fear of being too close to the edge, but I’ve had this happen on normal coutry paths with no canalside. Me “What are you doing? Pass on the left.” Margaret, “Miserable Bastard.” Pass on the left, like its a road, its not rocket science.
Conservative MP Julian Lewis
Conservative MP Julian Lewis says that pedestrians are putting cyclists at risk “because they can’t be bothered to use their eyes.” The New Forest East MP says all pedestrians should be obliged to have eyes open.
FTFH
Every year about 40 ponies
Every year about 40 ponies are killed by private cars in the new forest. About 10 cattle and many other animals are also killed.
Not long ago an ambulance driver and a patient were both killed by another motor vehicle in the New Forest too.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2315206/Paramedic-elderly-patient-die-New-Forest-ambulance-crash-car-driver-arrested.html
Maybe Lewis could actually pay some attention to the dangerous poison death cages that zoom around the New Forest putting people and animals in danger instead of picking on bike riders.
http://www.verderers.org.uk/roadaccs.pdf
“Wear a helmet!”
“Wear a helmet!”
“Wear hi-vis!”
“Get in the cycle lane!” (bizarrely, often twinned with “Cycle lanes cause air pollution!”)
“Buy insurance!”
“Pay road tax!”
“Display a registration number!”
And now – “Get a bell!”
These people won’t rest until riding a bike itself requires adherence to so many regulations that people don’t bother.
srchar wrote:
” get a 650b bike” – the industry.
Is there a formal petition on
Is there a formal petition on this? The man is clearly from the traditional tory inbreeding programme.
Bells are usually met with insults from pedestrians.
I use my freewheel noise if I’m angry, and my facial orifice if a friendly “ahoy!” is appropriate (which is pretty much all the time)
‘Speeding’ Cyclists?
‘Speeding’ Cyclists?
#thingsthatneverhappened
STiG911 wrote:
Remember a cyclist can simultaneously
Hold motorists up unreasonably
Be considered speeding by pedestrians
one more note – MP Julain
one more note – MP Julain Lewis should be made to wear a helmet at all times when in public since his opinions are clearly the result of repeatedly banging his head on street objects, which in turn is likely to be a result of inbreeding.
MarkiMark wrote:
this should do the trick
ConcordeCX wrote:
“Commons Leader Andrea
“Commons Leader Andrea Leadsom urged Mr Lewis to call a Commons debate on the issue”
This is great news. Now Brexit is sorted, the NHS is sufficiently funded, our education system is thriving, the emergency services are ably staffed and supported they can focus their attention on this.
Just to be clear; how many cyclists are hitting >70mph on these rural roads, Team Sky’s recruitment policy needs to be more centred around the New Forest…
I’ve noticed a strange
I’ve noticed a strange phenomenon when I ride along the canal and ting my bell at 2 people walking side-by-side. The person on the left crosses in front of/behind the other person to the right hand side. The other person does the opposite. They then stand there like lemons confused about what they’re supposed to do. Every single time. Dogs meanwhile have a quick look and keep to one side.
Humans eh?!
Zermattjohn wrote:
Fair point.
I imagine a dog could do a better job as an MP than this Lewis clown.
Just think, over £77k comprising part of our taxes is paying the salary of these people.
Anyone here a member of his constituency? I would be genuinely interested to see his reply to a question asking for statistics to back up his stance, compared to RTAs involving motor vehicles and ask what he’s doing about reducing those casualties.
I find voice 1.0 effective
I find voice 1.0 effective enough. Fitting a bell but not using woukd be no different.
But really pedestrians should try looking with their eyes not their ears when crossing roads.
What does the MP have to say about electric cars with their silent motors?
Finally handlebar space is better used by gps lights and camera than a bell which woukd be ignored.
And I’m sure the judge woukd accept I couldn’t use my brakes to stop in time as my hand was busy on the bell.
Cycling in London pedestrians
Cycling in London pedestrians don’t respond to, or hear, bells or shouting. What they do respond to thouigh is my 115dB “AirZound” air-horn which even makes motorists inside their cars jump a bit.
henryb wrote:
I have noticed that some flipping pedestrians wearing headhones cannot hear that
Comedy horn from the £1 store
Comedy horn from the £1 store works for me on shared paths – seems less imperious than a bell and reminds me of countless Marx Bros films.
Sadly last week, my mere presence alone on a back road brought down a horse and rider; no extra noise required, as it reared in surprise as I came into view at a medium pace (~13 mph). Sometimes you just can’t win… Luckily both nag and rider ok.
Just a short clip from my
Just a short clip from my local area last year, both incidents within two minutes of each other https://www.youtube.com/edit?o=U&video_id=lY71I_YuYSY
But in the New Forest, it’s always the cyclists’ fault.
Maybe enforce existing rules
Maybe enforce existing rules before inventing new ones.
Highway Code rule 56
Dogs. Do not let a dog out on the road on its own. Keep it on a short lead when walking on the pavement, road or path shared with cyclists or horse riders.
Maybe the MP could reflect on
Maybe the MP could reflect on Highway Code rule 1 and 2 for a while.
Then of course just look at the numbers killed by motor vehicles and act accordingly.
As a National Standards
As a National Standards Instructor & Sustrans Ranger, I am frequently concerned about mamils riding at speed on shared facilities.
I canot understand their reluctance to fit or use bells.
All my bikes have Dutch style ‘ding/dong’ bells which are effective at 30m & often elicit favourable comment.
Share with care!
NorthWalesSaint wrote:
Effective at what? Slowing them down or telling people to get out of their way? If speeding’s the problem bells aren’t going to solve it.
NorthWalesSaint wrote:
Could you define what you mean by mamil and which part of the country your experience is from? I’ve only ever seen a handful on road bikes in full lycra riding on the 18 km shared use path between Teddington Lock and Weybridge (part of NCN route 4) in the 10 years I’ve lived in the area, and have ridden it well over 100 times.
On a shared space with
On a shared space with pedestrians: You as the one with more kinetic energy slow down when approaching from behind and with respect to those in front having priority and take a course of action to take into account what someone might do and in which case you’ll be so close that a verbal warning will suffice. A bell is often either ignored, not heard or taken as an intimidation/admonishment noise.
On a road in an urban environment a bell is worse than useless, either it won’t be heard, it’ll be ignored, it’ll be taken as a sign you’re angry/coming through just in the same way a horn on a motor is and if a ped steps out the bell/warning is likely to scatter them all over the place.
Just look at how well it worked out for Alliston when he shouted an audible warning, he was condemned/lambasted for that yet in the same scenario for a motor it is recommended in the HC. If he’d have used another audible warning such as a bell do you think the outcome would be any different, no, because she didn’t probably hear it, I don’t even think she saw Alliston she was so panicked at not being able to cross/other motors coming close to her standing in the middle of the road.
The MP is not just a misguided fool he a total end of a bell.
Isn’t the entire premise of a
Isn’t the entire premise of a bell negated by the human attribute of a voice?
As a local I didn’t even have
As a local I didn’t even have to read where the MP was from to work it out. They’re obsessed with cyclists in New Forest. As a local who regularly rides in the park you see most drivers speeding over the 40mph limit, yet his focus is on cyclists with bells.
Amazing this is being raised by a New Forest MP, not by an MP representing a London borough. Take a stroll around the forest, it’s hardly rammed with pedestrians!! If cyclists are proving a danger to them it will be because they are not paying attention, the roads are so quiet!
North Wales Saint, I agree
North Wales Saint, I agree with the sentiment that we should share with care – be patient and respectful to other people. Unfortunately, you don’t even manage it in your comment, which ‘others’ certain people you consider to be ‘not like you’, and condemns them based on your prejudice.
http://www.newforestnpa.gov
http://www.newforestnpa.gov.uk/app/uploads/2018/01/New-Forest-Cycling-Code.pdf
The New Forest Cycling Code, which I think had quite a difficult passage, pre-supposes that you’ve got a bell, but does permit the use of Voice 1.0. It also suggests bright or reflective clothing – which of course will be translated as “he was all in black m’lud, me and my Audi didn’t stand a chance, what with my Raybans and my music blaring – look, it’s all set down here…” [gasps from the jury]. (You’re either watching the road properly or you’re not – flashing lights front and rear do help on a bright day under the tree canopy.)
To be fair, a lot of the Code is fairly positive and sensible; Mr Audi ought to have a copy taped over the front of his smart phone as there’s plenty of good advice for him too. In fact, doesn’t this sound like a gap in the market??
It’s surprising what people think is already mandatory on a bike – have bells ever been a requirement?
Advice on horse & riders when coming up behind – use your voice, horses are used to that, pass as wide as you can, smile and wave. The car is the common foe here, let’s show some solidarity.
+1 on dog owners and shared paths, the same ones that will happily drive at 45 with poochie loose in the car. Owner on the left, dog on the right, pathway clear. As I approach, what does the owner do? Calls the dog. What does the dog do? …
++1 about all the animal deaths on the main routes through the New Forest – quite worrying how many seem to be hit & run, even in a national of animal lovers. And don’t blame the visitors, plenty of this happens in the dark depths of winter.
The visitors will be out there this week, families ambling about the tracks and lanes on hire bikes – people in this county are longing to go cycling and will flog down the M3 for the right environment. Would Mr Lewis disapprove?
There is a certain type of cyclist who I wonder is, in these people’s minds “the problem”, just a minority who dress very tribal, are 100 times fitter and leaner than me, carbon bike in show room condition, wouldn’t be seen dead with anything other than a £59 bell, who take it pretty fast and cause this kind of alienation in some people’s minds? Guys, you know who you are – maybe ease up just a little? Stay awesome.
David9694 wrote:
Wait, are you saying cyclists should have speed limiters?
Failed to detect use of
Failed to detect use of ‘cockwomble’ and ‘wankpuffin’
“I’ll just cross the road whilst glued to my mobile and listening to my music and %$^£ any road users”
Oh look in 2016, 435 pedestrians were killed by non cyclists and 4086 seriously injured by non cyclists. Therefore cyclists are to blame.
I cycle in the New Forest at
I cycle in the New Forest at least twice a week. There are no pavements, so not sure where these hassled pedestrians are walking. I don’t see walkers in the roads, that would be really dangerous as pretty much every car driver exceeds the 40mph speed limit on these narrow roads. I have a lot of video evidence of cars driving dangerously as they approach or overtake me. I swear a lot in the forest as a result.
This MP is an idiot, he must be. I have never seen a cyclist exceeding 40mph in the forest. I have gotten close to it on a steep downhill, but then I have to be careful because they have those pinchpoints designed to cause collisions between oncoming traffic. I very much doubt my bell would be heard at any speed above 10mph and as I’ve said there is never anyone in the road to warn of my approach. Certainly the morons speeding towards me in their cars are not going to hear it.
You want to laugh at the stupid observation of this MP, but unfortunately there are even more idiots who will think he is making sense and even more money would be wasted allowing him to continue. Perhaps the real reason for his obvious hatred of cyclists is that the Government took back the £2m funding for cycling infrastructure in the New Forest a few years back because the corrupt bastards it was given to were spending it on anything but cycling infrastructure.
Muddy Ford wrote:
Well, if there are no pavements then where do you expect them to walk? They will be walking on the road and (hopefully) against the flow of traffic so they can see the cars and bikes and you should slow down and give them plenty of space.
Based on the vocabulary you use and your statements about swearing, the MP being an idiot and so on I would question your and those who starred your comment’s attitude. I used to live in Southampton and would come to New Forest to wind down after a working week. Every time I had a very pleasant ride there.
johnnybaloney wrote:
And you completely missed the point I made (3 times) that there are no walkers on the roads. The vast majority of roads do not have pavements. The biggest risk to any walkers would not be cyclists, it would be speeding cars. There is a 40mph limit throughout the Forest, and many drivers exceed this. Hence why animals get killed (because they do walk in the road). A cyclist hitting a horse or cow is not going to kill it, they are more likely to get killed themselves as a result of a collision with a 250kg animal. And a bell is not going to warn the animal. That you haven’t cursed at drivers whilst on your bike, suggests to me that you drive more than you cycle…or where you cycle the drivers are unbelievably considerate to cyclists on the daily commute.
If you had to put funding to implement a new law to protect pedestrians, you would put your money on compulsory bells in the New Forest?? I’m glad you are not in charge of spending. Out of interest, how would you measure the success of such a law?
How can I brake with two
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.
kingleo wrote:
Your bell is clearly in the wrong place.
johnnybaloney wrote:
If the bell is next to a brake it will be where I hold the handlebars – not a very good idea.
I totally agree with this
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 wrote:
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.
johnnybaloney wrote:
”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…
johnnybaloney wrote:
‘…….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>
johnnybaloney wrote:
Pure trolling.
I already gave the 2016 pedestrians stats in the thread.
johnnybaloney wrote:
‘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).
The fundamental problem here
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.
FFS
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.
BBB wrote:
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.
johnnybaloney wrote:
It already has, innumberable times; helmets.
burtthebike wrote:
The parable of the camel’s nose:
http://www.mainlesson.com/display.php?author=scudder&book=fables&story=arab
If a bell is mandatory does
If a bell is mandatory does that mean that deaf/hard of hearing pedestrians will be banned from the area for their own safety?
hawkinspeter wrote:
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.
ConcordeCX wrote:
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.
Am I totally missing the
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.
ConcordeCX 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.
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.
Over to you then, I’m expecting a costed, practical plan by the end of the weekend.
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.
That’s what cyclists say about cars, so you should be able to understand the pedestrians’ view.
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?
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.
You said the reason, the space is shared. Have you ever walked on a road without a pavement? How did it feel?
johnnybaloney wrote:
*Sighs*
johnnybaloney 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.
johnnybaloney 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-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.
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.
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.
Over to you then, I’m expecting a costed, practical plan by the end of the weekend.
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.— ConcordeCX
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/
ConcordeCX wrote:
^ wot ‘e sed
bike.owner wrote:
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.
— bike.owner
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?
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.
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.
— hawkinspeter
Great link. Here is one from me:
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.
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?
johnnybaloney]
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.— bike.owner
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.
johnnybaloney wrote:
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.
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).
johnnybaloney wrote:
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?
I actually came up behind
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).
hirsute wrote:
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…
hirsute wrote:
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…