Ring your bell for pedestrians?

newbie18892

I appreciate it when cyclists ring their bells when cycling behind a pedestrian on the road but I find it absolutely mad how many times I encounter cyclists in the park here ringing their bells to get walkers to move out of their way on the path. I had one guy on a bike recently yell "Move" at me while I was walking my dog and he scared the bejesus out of my dog, let alone me! I wasn't wearing earphones but just genuinely hadn't heard him. I find it crazy that they can't just go around walkers by going onto the grass for 5 seconds.

tomasrojo

Don't know if this is what the area looked like, but this wouldn't be an example of somewhere I'd cycle very fast approaching anyone.

breezy1985

newbie18892 wrote: »

I appreciate it when cyclists ring their bells when cycling behind a pedestrian on the road but I find it absolutely mad how many times I encounter cyclists in the park here ringing their bells to get walkers to move out of their way on the path. I had one guy on a bike recently yell "Move" at me while I was walking my dog and he scared the bejesus out of my dog, let alone me! I wasn't wearing earphones but just genuinely hadn't heard him. I find it crazy that they can't just go around walkers by going onto the grass for 5 seconds.

Cyclists should never be behind pedestrians on a road because pedestrians should walk on the opposite side of the road.

On a shared path the cyclist is required to cycle in a safe manner and give way to pedestrians.

A lot of cyclists can't just go into the grass because the bike isn't equipped for it and they would crash

Tombo2001

tomasrojo wrote: »

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.

Child was knocked off their bike by a car on the road. Pity the primary shared use facility for cyclists dont employ a lower acceptable driving speed.

JimmiesRustled

Is anyone else finding this whole argument completely ridiculous?

I've zero issue running a bell on my "racing bike" but what good will it do?

The majority of pedestrians have ear phones in.

So if we're saying "all cyclists need to use a bell" then fine, no pedestrian can use any form of technology that would otherwise impact them hearing a bell.

What kind of absolute nonsense is that?

Its always the exact same on here. Cycle on the road, you're told to get off the road. Cycle on the cycle track, you're told to use a bell in case someone steps out in front of you.

Most places in Dublin you'd be lucky to not get a slap for using a bell. Apparently cycling alone is enough reason to warrant a few slaps in some places.

Next time someone steps out onto the cycle track I'll remember to ring my magic bell instead of pulling both brakes. If there's an accident I'll tell them the bright minds of boards told me to do it.

Every post related to dog walkers, pedestrians or motorists on this sub-forum just attracts people who have zero interest in cycling but want to air their grievance's about cyclists.

We're not the lad in a hoody cycling down the footpath while giving his mate a backer. Its the equivalent of going onto the motoring forum and saying you witnessed some kids joy riding and by association everyone who drives a car is a scumbag because they all must do it.

breezy1985

JimmiesRustled wrote: »

Is anyone else finding this whole argument completely ridiculous?

I've zero issue running a bell on my "racing bike" but what good will it do?

The majority of pedestrians have ear phones in.

So if we're saying "all cyclists need to use a bell" then fine, no pedestrian can use any form of technology that would otherwise impact them hearing a bell.

What kind of absolute nonsense is that?

Its always the exact same on here. Cycle on the road, you're told to get off the road. Cycle on the cycle track, you're told to use a bell in case someone steps out in front of you.

Most places in Dublin you'd be lucky to not get a slap for using a bell. Apparently cycling alone is enough reason to warrant a few slaps in some places.

Next time someone steps out onto the cycle track I'll remember to ring my magic bell instead of pulling both brakes. If there's an accident I'll tell them the bright minds of boards told me to do it.

Every post related to dog walkers, pedestrians or motorists on this sub-forum just attracts people who have zero interest in cycling but want to air their grievance's about cyclists.

We're not the lad in a hoody cycling down the footpath while giving his mate a backer. Its the equivalent of going onto the motoring forum and saying you witnessed some kids joy riding and by association everyone who drives a car is a scumbag because they all must do it.

I bit more angry sounding than I would have pot it but you got it pretty right.
And there is a case for pedestrians on roads not using headphones. It's wrong when cyclists do it so the same should apply to anyone on a road sticking sound blocking devices in their ears

partyguinness

JimmiesRustled wrote: »

Is anyone else finding this whole argument completely ridiculous?

I've zero issue running a bell on my "racing bike" but what good will it do?

The majority of pedestrians have ear phones in.

So if we're saying "all cyclists need to use a bell" then fine, no pedestrian can use any form of technology that would otherwise impact them hearing a bell.

What kind of absolute nonsense is that?

Its always the exact same on here. Cycle on the road, you're told to get off the road. Cycle on the cycle track, you're told to use a bell in case someone steps out in front of you.

Most places in Dublin you'd be lucky to not get a slap for using a bell. Apparently cycling alone is enough reason to warrant a few slaps in some places.

Next time someone steps out onto the cycle track I'll remember to ring my magic bell instead of pulling both brakes. If there's an accident I'll tell them the bright minds of boards told me to do it.

Every post related to dog walkers, pedestrians or motorists on this sub-forum just attracts people who have zero interest in cycling but want to air their grievance's about cyclists.

We're not the lad in a hoody cycling down the footpath while giving his mate a backer. Its the equivalent of going onto the motoring forum and saying you witnessed some kids joy riding and by association everyone who drives a car is a scumbag because they all must do it.

This is exactly why the cycling forum has such a bad rep. Any perceived little criticism (and the bar is very low) of cycling or cyclists is taken as a grave personal insult by some extremely sensitive cycling posters and any poster that has the gall to highlight an issue or incident or generally not tow the party line is promptly rounded on with all sorts of crap thrown back. If it winds you up that much then ignore it. Chill the fcuk out.

breezy1985

partyguinness wrote: »

This is exactly why the cycling forum has such a bad rep. Any perceived little criticism (and the bar is very low) of cycling or cyclists is taken as a grave personal insult by some extremely sensitive cycling posters and any poster that has the gall to highlight an issue or incident or generally not tow the party line is promptly rounded on with all sorts of crap thrown back. If it winds you up that much then ignore it. Chill the fcuk out.

Every day some "genius" thinks that they are the first "legend" to come up with the idea of coming on the cycling forum and antagonizing people with stupid anecdotal stories about a time something nearly happened followed by stories of that time " my friends brothers cousin" nearly had a problem.

It is always easily debunked and ends in the OP crying cause we all didn't get down and grovel and apologize for our sins

Paddigol

The same lads deciding that you shouldn't be cycling where you are because its a "footpath" are almost certainly the same lads who'd point to the same spot and tell you you should be cycling there, not on the road, because its a "cycle lane". They generally tend to have an opinion on and an expertise in everything, and deserve approximately 0% of your time and attention.

JimmiesRustled

partyguinness wrote: »

This is exactly why the cycling forum has such a bad rep. Any perceived little criticism (and the bar is very low) of cycling or cyclists is taken as a grave personal insult by some extremely sensitive cycling posters and any poster that has the gall to highlight an issue or incident or generally not tow the party line is promptly rounded on with all sorts of crap thrown back. If it winds you up that much then ignore it. Chill the fcuk out.

To be honest it probably sounds angrier than I intended it to. I have a bell on my daily commuter and I use it but it's completely useless.

I have zero issue with criticism of cyclists. I'd be a major critic when it comes to how cyclists act on roads, cycling more then two abreast, not giving way when there is a line of traffic behind etc.

My main issue with these type of threads is that they aren't constructive. They start out fine with generally someone raising a valid point.

A couple of posts in and you start to find a few people essentially bringing nothing to the conversation other than cyclists are all pr!cks and just continually interjecting with drivel. If it was one or two threads you'd say fair enough but its every single time without fail.

tomasrojo

Tombo2001 wrote: »

Child was knocked off their bike by a car on the road. Pity the primary shared use facility for cyclists dont employ a lower acceptable driving speed.

No, it was the dog walking incident I was referring to when I said I was interested in what sort of facility it was, not the child being hit.

Sorry to hear about the child, and I hope he or she is ok.

tomasrojo

breezy1985 wrote: »

Cyclists should never be behind pedestrians on a road because pedestrians should walk on the opposite side of the road.

On a shared path the cyclist is required to cycle in a safe manner and give way to pedestrians.

A lot of cyclists can't just go into the grass because the bike isn't equipped for it and they would crash

Yeah, very skinny tyred bike maybe, but I don't think I've ever had a bike that can't go on grass for a short bit. Unless it's really muddy grass.

All the same, if I wanted to go fast, I'd leave shared-use facilities out of my daily route. They're just no good for it.

tomasrojo

JimmiesRustled wrote: »

Next time someone steps out onto the cycle track I'll remember to ring my magic bell instead of pulling both brakes. If there's an accident I'll tell them the bright minds of boards told me to do it.

You're supposed to ring the bell *before* the person steps out or whatever. I actually have my bikes set up, including a drop-bar bike, so you can ring the bell and brake with both levers at the same time, or close enough, but if you're in a situation like you describe, it's not really recommended that you waste time ringing the bell.

I really don't think bells are a major issue, and I really don't care if people don't use them. I definitely find them moderately useful, and I just kind of like them generally.

Paddigol

partyguinness wrote: »

This is exactly why the cycling forum has such a bad rep. Any perceived little criticism (and the bar is very low) of cycling or cyclists is taken as a grave personal insult by some extremely sensitive cycling posters and any poster that has the gall to highlight an issue or incident or generally not tow the party line is promptly rounded on with all sorts of crap thrown back. If it winds you up that much then ignore it. Chill the fcuk out.

You've got to post here regularly to appreciate the amount of ignorance (and that's what it is - ignorance of what constitutes a cycle path, ignorance of the law relating to use of cycle paths, ignorance of the effectiveness of hi-viz clothing, ignorance as to the law regarding hi-viz clothing, ignorance regarding the logic to cycling two-abreast, etc. etc. ad nauseum) posted here continuously by people who clearly just have a chip on their shoulders about cyclists and want to pop in to vent. Nobody likes rebutting the same angrily vented misguided notion for the 100th time.

Tombo2001

And where exactly does the cycling forum have a bad rep? Amongst whom does it have a bad rep.

How do you make such an assessment.

Are all the guys in a politics forum sitting having a coffee discussing us?

(or are you just making up stuff, because thats a great way to win arguments ).

tomasrojo

These discussions always remind me of this enjoyable bit of sarcasm.

Ultimately though I decided to tackle the bell removal, and after employing an exotic tool known as a "screwdriver" I eventually succeeded in doing so, but then there was a frightening stretch of time during which my bicycle had no bell at all which meant it was completely unrideable!

https://bikesnobnyc.blogspot.com/2016/01/trials-and-tintinnabulations.html

magicbastarder

someone didn't get the memo - it was anti-cyclist time *before* the lockdowns; anti-joggers in lockdown one, and anti-dryrobers in lockdown 2. it has yet to be decided who will be targetted in lockdown 3 in january.

breezy1985

tomasrojo wrote: »

Yeah, very skinny tyred bike maybe, but I don't think I've ever had a bike that can't go on grass for a short bit. Unless it's really muddy grass.

All the same, if I wanted to go fast, I'd leave shared-use facilities out of my daily route. They're just no good for it.

I avoid the shared routes and the off road cycle lanes. I cycle at 30kph which is too fast for shared and a pain trying to avoid people on the off road lanes

breezy1985

Tombo2001 wrote: »

And where exactly does the cycling forum have a bad rep? Amongst whom does it have a bad rep.

How do you make such an assessment.

Are all the guys in a politics forum sitting having a coffee discussing us?

(or are you just making up stuff, because thats a great way to win arguments ).

In the motoring forum and the alt-right anti SJW forum I assume

breezy1985

tomasrojo wrote: »

Yeah, very skinny tyred bike maybe, but I don't think I've ever had a bike that can't go on grass for a short bit. Unless it's really muddy grass.

All the same, if I wanted to go fast, I'd leave shared-use facilities out of my daily route. They're just no good for it.

It's not the grass that gets me it's when I am transitioning from tarmac to grass or back

eeeee

Mod note: I think this thread has run its course.
Closed before this descends 'cyclists only exist to terrify/ hold up/ antagonize pedestrians/ drivers etc.