Ring your bell for pedestrians?

Tombo2001

whisky_galore wrote: »

People who should know better shouldn't be on footpaths. You're a grown adult, not a kiddie on training wheels.

Grand very good, nice condescending remark.

You can talk all day about what people should do.

If a cyclist feels safer on the footpath than on the road, they will go on the footpath.

And lots of grown adults are parents of kiddies.

EDIT - and no, I dont cycle on the footpath. Unless I'm with a 7 year old. In which case I do, and make zero apology for it.

breezy1985

tomasrojo wrote: »

All the same, I'd personally prefer a light or combination of lights that is fairly large and bright, than rather small but dazzling.

But they probably should just update that SI so it says something like "visible from a distance of x metres in clear conditions at night". Not sure what x should be. 300m? Gives someone travelling at 50km/h about 20 seconds to notice. 150m, for about 10 seconds? The lights the RSA give away wouldn't meet that, but they don't meet the old size requirement either, to say the least.

On the bell issue, I find that a bell is handy for going around blind bends on cycle facilities, or for passing parked vans, as both situations where you can suddenly find someone on a bike or on foot right in front of you. They're ok for letting people walking on cycle tracks that you're behind them.

I regarded them as a waste of time, based on experience years ago, but since I got a Dutch-style bike that came with one, I have come around to thinking they're moderately useful.

The best way to measure lights would be a minimum lumens level and also get rid of all talk of imperial measurements. What I don't get about bike laws in Ireland and all these half arses cycle lanes is it would be so easy to have a quick chat with the EU countries who do it right and copy and paste their law rather than the usual irish approach of copying UK law which also sucks for bikes

tomasrojo

I don't know if the StVZO in Germany is a standard that has to be followed, but the lights that conform to it are really good. Light up the road before you and not the tree tops.

tomasrojo

breezy1985 wrote: »

The best way to measure lights would be a minimum lumens level and also get rid of all talk of imperial measurements. What I don't get about bike laws in Ireland and all these half arses cycle lanes is it would be so easy to have a quick chat with the EU countries who do it right and copy and paste their law rather than the usual irish approach of copying UK law which also sucks for bikes

The only thing about lumens and all that is that there are competing units. Some people say lux are a better unit. The StVZO-compliant lights usually specify lux, I think.

Also visible-from-a-certain-distance makes it easier for someone who has a light but not the box and it isn't very technical to judge whether their light is about right. And a roadside garda too, I suppose.

Bit about the lux requirement here:
http://www.light-test.info/en/faq-en/169-stvzo-bike-lamps-regulations

I actually wouldn't want a very exacting standard, really. But I don't think the little coin-cell ones the RSA give away would meet any legal minimum requirement I'd regard as useful. My Cateye light on the low setting is 10lux, and it's a good light for seeing your way, but it would considerably exceed what I'd regard as acceptable for a being-seen light.

Tombo2001

My biggest gripe with the bike lights is that they can be hard to attach. In particular, a lot of them come with very finicky rubber band type fittings, such that if you lose one part of it (which can easily happen when charging it) then the rest of it is useless.

Macy0161

tomasrojo wrote: »

I don't know if the StVZO in Germany is a standard that has to be followed, but the lights that conform to it are really good. Light up the road before you and not the tree tops.

It is, in my opinion. RSA love copy and pasting, but not interesting in translating and the copy and pasting!

breezy1985

tomasrojo wrote: »

The only thing about lumens and all that is that there are competing units. Some people say lux are a better unit. The StVZO-compliant lights usually specify lux, I think.

Also visible-from-a-certain-distance makes it easier for someone who has a light but not the box and it isn't very technical to judge whether their light is about right. And a roadside garda too, I suppose.

Bit about the lux requirement here:
http://www.light-test.info/en/faq-en/169-stvzo-bike-lamps-regulations

I actually wouldn't want a very exacting standard, really. But I don't think the little coin-cell ones the RSA give away would meet any legal minimum requirement I'd regard as useful.

I think either lumen or lux works but I don't understand enough of the science I just read to be sure but either should work. Measuring visibility from a distance is dependent on the lighting situation around you so is useless when buying your light where as lumen is on the box.

I used use those RSA ones around London where all you need is any kind of light to mark where you are on the road but every inch of the roads there were well lit. I tried using them in Ireland and couldn't see the pot holes

magicbastarder

ED E wrote: »

Bell and only a bell, but I imagine as many Gardai know that as know that parking on a verge is illegal.

yeah, i've always found that funny. motorists are allowed have car horns for use in traffic, presumably to be used on cyclists as the need arises. but cyclists who have to share the same space are legally allowed nothing more than a bell to address those same motorists.

anyway, i was kinda getting at the fact that the laws on this are very outdated. cf. the discussion about light standards above.

magicbastarder

tomasrojo wrote: »

Bit about the lux requirement here:
http://www.light-test.info/en/faq-en/169-stvzo-bike-lamps-regulations
...
what I'd regard as acceptable for a being-seen light.

this - the standard in the link mentioned is for front lights, which *should* be largely directional, but rear lights shouldn't.

tomasrojo

breezy1985 wrote: »

I think either lumen or lux works but I don't understand enough of the science I just read to be sure but either should work.

Lux is more or less how many lumens are falling on a surface per square metre in front of the bike. It's less total output and closer to how effective the output is.

breezy1985 wrote: »

Measuring visibility from a distance is dependent on the lighting situation around you so is useless when buying your light where as lumen is on the box.

Yeah, it's not very scientific. The old regulations used that style.
Eg.

Each lamp when lit shall be capable of showing to the front of the vehicle a white light visible at night time in clear weather for a distance of 500 feet.

I do sometimes dig out old lights when my current ones fail, and the box long gone, so I'm not always immediately aware of how many lumens or lux they produce. If I wasn't in a hurry, I suppose I could look up the code on the lamp body.

Iodine1

CramCycle wrote: »

Not if your bike is adapted for racing, the more you know. What is adapted for racing and what does it mean. It is a statement from the rider since there are no other definitions. My lights also serve as a rear reflector, most lights will. The one you want to watch out for, which I do break (if its still there), is the size of the light. This may have been updated but there used ot be specifications on the size of the light itself if I recall correctly.

Should you be racing on a shared walkway?
A bell is not that heavy or expensive, so please use it, or you run the risk of someone stepping in front of you and wrecking your expensive bike as well as serious injury to you and pedestrian.

tomasrojo

CramCycle wrote: »

The one you want to watch out for, which I do break (if its still there), is the size of the light. This may have been updated but there used ot be specifications on the size of the light itself if I recall correctly.

Yeah, quite a lot!

(3) A front lamp fitted to a cycle shall—

(a) when lit, show to the front of the cycle a white or yellow light visible during lighting-up hours for a reasonable distance,

(b) be fitted on the centre line of the vehicle or to the right of that line,

(c) be fitted so that no part of the illuminated surface of the lamp is more than 5 feet from the ground.

(4) A rear lamp fitted to a cycle shall—

(a) when lit, show to the rear of the cycle a red light visible during lighting-up hours for a reasonable distance,

(b) have an illuminated area of at least 2 square inches and of such a shape that a circle of 1 inch in diameter may be inscribed therein,

(c) be fitted—

(i) on the centre line of the cycle or to the right of that line,

(ii) so that no part of the illuminated surface of the lamp is more than 3 feet or less than 12 inches from the ground,

(iii) so that it is not more than 20 inches from the extreme rear of the cycle.

http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/eli/1963/si/189/made/en/print

Think that's the most up to date. 1963!

mumo3

As a pedestrian I had a run in with a cyclist on the canal.

While out walking on the canal with my dogs which I do regularly, my dog spotted something along the grass and pulled on the lead sideways, which lead me right into the path of and to just narrowly miss being hit by a cyclist flying up behind me.

When I confronted them about ringing their bell, to inform me of their approach was told they don't have bells on race bikes.

Seriously folks its a canal not a part of the tour de france course.

If myself, my child or my dog (which is on a lead) is hit and injured by a cyclist who is paying my medical expenses if any, is it classed as assault?

I as a driver must have a horn and wear a seat belt, a bell and helmet should be part of cycling, but I'm sure that's another discussion.

tomasrojo

mumo3 wrote: »

As a pedestrian I had a run in with a cyclist on the canal.

While out walking on the canal with my dogs which I do regularly, my dog spotted something along the grass and pulled on the lead sideways, which lead me right into the path of and to just narrowly miss being hit by a cyclist flying up behind me.

When I confronted them about ringing their bell, to inform me of their approach was told they don't have bells on race bikes.

Seriously folks its a canal not a part of the tour de france course.

If myself, my child or my dog (which is on a lead) is hit and injured by a cyclist who is paying my medical expenses if any, is it classed as assault?

I as a driver must have a horn and wear a seat belt, a bell and helmet should be part of cycling, but I'm sure that's another discussion.

Yes there are rules about being in control of your dog. Thank you for your contribution.

tomasrojo

tomasrojo wrote: »

Yeah, quite a lot!


http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/eli/1963/si/189/made/en/print

Think that's the most up to date. 1963!

And we are now in an age when scooters are common place on the roads etc. No way most would meet the requirement for the min. height and size of the rear light if the same rule was applied.

tomasrojo

Actually, that was too flippant.

I assume you ended up walking in front of an oncoming cyclist either on the road or a cycle track. Since people describe bikes going at 20km/h as "flying" it's hard to know if the cyclist was travelling at excessive speed but the cyclist giving a verbal warning would have sufficed either, as well as braking or trying to avoid you.

Not sure how people wearing helmets would help you keep control of your dog, but there is a tedious megathread where this surprisingly contentious subject is dealt with at length.

mumo3

tomasrojo wrote: »

Yes there are rules about being in control of your dog. Thank you for your contribution.

The dog was on a lead smart arse, the canal is not a race track!!

It could have easily been a small child who darted across a path in front of the bike.

tomasrojo

Deleted User wrote: »

And we are now in an age when scooters are common place on the roads etc. No way most would meet the requirement for the min. height and size of the rear light if the same rule was applied.

Yeah, I think the rear light of a Brompton, usually mounted just above the small wheels, just meets the criterion of minimum height off the ground.

breezy1985

mumo3 wrote: »

As a pedestrian I had a run in with a cyclist on the canal.

While out walking on the canal with my dogs which I do regularly, my dog spotted something along the grass and pulled on the lead sideways, which lead me right into the path of and to just narrowly miss being hit by a cyclist flying up behind me.

When I confronted them about ringing their bell, to inform me of their approach was told they don't have bells on race bikes.

Seriously folks its a canal not a part of the tour de france course.

If myself, my child or my dog (which is on a lead) is hit and injured by a cyclist who is paying my medical expenses if any, is it classed as assault?

I as a driver must have a horn and wear a seat belt, a bell and helmet should be part of cycling, but I'm sure that's another discussion.

How would the bell have stopped your dog?

anplaya27

Also the amount of times cyclists get annoyed at me is hilarious. I be walking along minding my own business when they slow down and point at their bells. Sorry lads, I'm profoundly Deaf. If I cant hear a jet engine how am I supposed to hear a ****ty little bell. Take into consideration if the persons not reacting, then maybe they cant hear......

breezy1985

mumo3 wrote: »

The dog was on a lead smart arse, the canal is not a race track!!

It could have easily been a small child who darted across a path in front of the bike.

Again the bell isn't the issue here.
Are you maybe talking about speed limits on shared paths?

mumo3

tomasrojo wrote: »

Actually, that was too flippant.

I assume you ended up walking in front of an oncoming cyclist either on the road or a cycle track. Since people describe bikes going at 20km/h as "flying" it's hard to know if the cyclist was travelling at excessive speed but the cyclist giving a verbal warning would have sufficed either, as well as braking or trying to avoid you.

Not sure how people wearing helmets would help you keep control of your dog, but there is a tedious megathread where this surprisingly contentious subject is dealt with at length.

There are no cycle tracks on the canal, its a straight run from the hazel hatch to the lyons estate, easy to pick up speed.

I'm quiet happy with a verbal warning, just let us know. My dog is perfectly under control and on the canal I am free to let him off his lead, but don't as it is quiet a busy walk.

tomasrojo

mumo3 wrote: »

The dog was on a lead smart arse

You still walked out in front of someone unexpectedly. If you're not strong enough to not have your dog pull you out in front of people, you're not really in control.

mumo3 wrote: »

It could have easily been a small child who darted across a path in front of the bike.

You and your dog could have injured a child cycling past by walking out unexpectedly.

breezy1985

anplaya27 wrote: »

Also the amount of times cyclists get annoyed at me is hilarious. I be walking along minding my own business when they slow down and point at their bells. Sorry lads, I'm profoundly Deaf. If I cant hear a jet engine how am I supposed to hear a ****ty little bell. Take into consideration if the persons not reacting, then maybe they cant hear......

That's why I don't expect much reaction when I use it and am always slowing down in anticipation as I use the bell because the majority of walkers these days have earphones in

tomasrojo

The speed of the cyclist is potentially an issue, and also whether cyclists are allowed to use that stretch.

Is it a tow path or is it specifically a mixed-use path for people on foot and on bikes?

Pkiernan

magicbastarder wrote: »

do i recall that air horns are explicitly forbidden for cyclists to use?

I had one on my bike to deter dogs.
It was recharged by pumping it.
It was a great yoke.
Caused one dog to literally back flip when I pressed it 3ft from the little shirt.

Broke when I was forced off my bike by a lorry driver on a bend.

Tombo2001

If I had a quid for every time I've heard about a cyclist nearly hitting someone.

But its only two days since I heard about a child being knocked off their bike on their way to our local school.

anplaya27

The amount of times cyclists get annoyed at me is hilarious. I be walking along minding my own business when they go past, slow down and point at their bells. Sorry lads, I'm profoundly Deaf. If I cant hear a jet engine how am I supposed to hear a ****ty little bell. Take into consideration if the persons not reacting, then maybe they cant hear......

Tombo2001

anplaya27 wrote: »

The amount of times cyclists get annoyed at me is hilarious. I be walking along minding my own business when they go past, slow down and point at their bells. Sorry lads, I'm profoundly Deaf. If I cant hear a jet engine how am I supposed to hear a ****ty little bell. Take into consideration if the persons not reacting, then maybe they cant hear......

You might pass that message on to the steady line of Irish Times letter writers complaining that cyclists wont use their bell.

Damned if you do.....

tomasrojo

Tombo2001 wrote: »

If I had a quid for every time I've heard about a cyclist nearly hitting someone.

But its only two days since I heard about a child being knocked off their bike on their way to our local school.

I am interested though in whether it was a shared-use walk/cycle facility or what. These shared-use facilities really have a lower acceptable cycling speed than properly segregated ones. I mean, it's not a legal difference, as far as I know, but if pedestrians and people on bikes are not segregated and are in a narrow-ish space, it's often unreasonable to try to go fast on a bike.