Coincidentally, I bought a 12v car horn yesterday with the intent of wiring it into my ebike's power supply with a little button on my handlebars.
Not because of other cyclists or pedestrians wearing (anc) headphones but because modern cars are so heavily sound-proofed they don't hear a bicycle bell anymore. A recent incident with an inattentive taxi driver in a brand new EV nearly flattening me prompted me to want to pursue this.
I'm still waiting for my cheap AliExpress dc-to-dc step down converter but otherwise I have everything I need and I think it should work. The horn module itself is definitely loud enough: I connected it to a 12v power supply at my desk and jumped out of my chair.
In order for e.g. a horn to work you need enough time that the driver processes the situation and decides the horn will communicate something AND enough time for the pedestrian or whatever to process that and react to it. Generally it's a lot easier just to press the brake, and more importantly be travelling at a speed and in a manner where the brake is sufficient.
Structurally, we'd be much better off reducing conflicts between the different tiers of users. I.e. properly segregated infrastructure for each class of vehicle.
A horn or bell is mostly for telling other people "hey I'm here, stay out of my way and dont suddenly cross into my path"
My opinion as a cyclist is that I should basically only be using my bell on pedestrians when the pedestrians are wandering onto the bike lane. If im cycling through a shared space, I find it extremely rude to ring the bell, because it feels like I'm telling people to get out of my way, but they have just as much right to a shared path as I do. Some cyclists ring their bells because they're worried a pedestrian might suddenly turn into their path, but I think if one is concerned about that, it's a sign youre cycling too fast, and should just slow down.
With cars, I will sometimes proactively ring my bell at them if I think they're not sufficiently aware enough of me though.
> With cars, I will sometimes proactively ring my bell at them if I think they're not sufficiently aware enough of me though.
There's only a few types of car that will be "aware" of cyclists and I don't think ringing a bell will help their algorithms. Getting the attention of a driver, meanwhile, is difficult with a bell as often they'll be in a semi-soundproof cage with loud music on. (Also deaf drivers are a thing).
I've never really considered using a bell for motorised traffic. I did once buy a loud air-horn, but it was so loud and abrasive that I never used it as it seemed really rude.
> I've never really considered using a bell for motorised traffic.
It works surprisingly well if the car isn't moving quickly. Cars aren't as sound isolating as you'd think. My main use-case is that a car is stopped at an intersection, or crossing my lane so they can turn, and I'm worried they'll pull out and hit me because they're looking the wrong way focused on car traffic, and in these situations they almost always hear my bell.
I think bells do have a communication use of course, just not really to be used as an emergency 'an accident is about to happen, immediately take action'.
At least a bell sounds relatively polite if you're not spamming it. A horn is a bit aggressive, you have to modulate it.
In a car I use two short tapped toots as a polite kind of 'excuse me' e.g. if someone hasn't noticed a light turning green. That seems more friendly than a sustained blast.
On the bike with a bell I'll just say thank you as I pass, if they've moved for me. Usually seems to go down well enough.
> If im cycling through a shared space, I find it extremely rude to ring the bell, because it feels like I'm telling people to get out of my way, but they have just as much right to a shared path as I do.
It’s certainly rude to ring the bell in a aggressive manner, but many bells are capable of producing much softer, more polite sounds.
In super busy old European capitals I find that people increasingly just ride around with speakers playing a constant tune at a reasonable volume, a massive improvement on dense streets full of varyingly sober people.
I still think that ringing bells at people is a little rude, regardless of the tone. Like imagine if you were at the grocery store, blocking the isle and someone lightly chimed a bell at you instead of just saying "excuse me".
IMO if I'm in a dense pedestrian zone and I can't go around people and I can't communicate by voice, it means I'm going too fast.
I'm also in Europe, and I always just either say the equivalent in the local language, or just use english. Even in the smallest most remote villages, you'd be pretty hard pressed to find someone who doesn't know the word "sorry".
My solution to this is that I ring my bell when I'm far from people, usually twice while I'm still a fair way away. It just gets pedestrians conscious that there's a bike around, while also being far enough away that it's not going to surprise them and I don't think they assume it's an aggressive bell.
My least favourite is when a cyclist speeds past and shouts "on ya right" (I'm in Australia) but they shout it when they're so close that there's no chance of hearing and understanding in time.
> A horn or bell is mostly for telling other people "hey I'm here, stay out of my way and dont suddenly cross into my path"
This. I only use the bell on bike paths, too. Sometimes it feels like a game of pac-man, where baddies will wander into my path from all directions and in all kinds of ways. Cars doing a right turn, zombies staring into phones, people walking backwards (!), zombies staring into phones walking backwards, it doesn't end.
I concur. Even the best bell in the world may be utterly useless if the pedestrian happens to be deaf. Also, bicycle bells tend to polarise pedestrians - some people think that bells are rude and insisting that peds get out of the way and other people think it's dangerous and rude to not use a bell every time you overtake.
My solution is to still have a tiny bell on my road bike, but instead of using it, call out something like "can I get past, please?" or if an immediate response is required (e.g. ped blindly stepping into the road ahead of me) then yelling "Oi!" can really surprise them and make them notice you. I'm also a fan of using "Beep, beep" if a ped is on cycle infrastructure (active travel infrastructure is probably a better term) and I want to pretend that I'm an impatient driver.
I think the human voice is far superior to a bell as you can tailor the message for the situation and you don't have to move a hand away from the brakes to do so. (Using your voice is also a very good idea when approaching a horse and rider - horses know about humans and don't get freaked out if you call ahead "Morning!" or something cheery and appropriate).
I realised after a few near misses that my voice is by far the lowest latency signal method I have. If a situation suddenly seems dangerous I'll yell. Perhaps not very polite, but far more polite than hitting someone who stepped out in front of me. A bike bell probably adds a second of latency to find the bell. I'd rather use that time to brake.
The bell can be useful as a more general "I'm here" warning. But if there's any actual risk of a collision, yelling and braking are far more effective.
> Generally it's a lot easier just to press the brake
Maybe easier, but it hardly seems fair, nor realistic.
With a bit of experience, you can tell when pedestrians are likely to stumble onto the bike lane without looking. Then you have two choices: Significantly reduce your speed, or ring your bell first and only reduce speed if they still haven't noticed the oncoming bike.
If you only reduce speed, you'll be traveling at a very low average speed, and time is money (especially for bike delivery workers, but I also hate having to sharply decelerate for people glued to their screen or otherwise completely unaware of their surroundings even if I'm not in a rush), so you can take a guess as to whether "just reducing your speed" is practicable.
I get your point about not wanting to reduce speed, but it's worth considering how the law might react in a worse-case scenario.
Here in the UK, there was an infamous case of Charlie Alliston who ended up getting a ridiculous 18 months prison sentence after colliding with a pedestrian who hit her head and subsequently died. He was riding a "fixie" without a front brake and was cycling at around 18mph through some green traffic lights. The pedestrian was crossing the road further on (i.e. not at a junction which is fairly normal) and wasn't paying enough attention, so Charlie shouted at her to get out of his way. He started to reduce speed (rear brake only), but then decided that he could just aim for the gap behind her, but she then reacted to his shouting by stepping backwards into his path.
The point is that the judge awarded such a tough sentence partly due to Charlie not taking all available actions to avoid a collision and also because his bike was illegal to use on the road due to having just one brake. So, if you rely on a bell to clear your path, you could be held liable if they don't respond and you collide.
To be clear, I am still reducing my speed if I don't get positive confirmation that I've been noticed or if there's not enough time for a reaction to even happen.
My bell just gives me the significant improvement of possibly getting a reaction from the pedestrian long before I need to start braking.
However, not everybody does cycle like that. And while legally and ethically dubious, the bell still helps in that case as well.
I don't know, the sentence doesn't sound ridiculous if you're cycliing at 18mph towards someone, without a front brake, and your precaution is "it's OK, I can guess which way they're going to go".
> If you only reduce speed, you'll be traveling at a very low average speed, and time is money
Well this is a bit of an appeal to consequences. I would say (a) this is a very good reason to build dedicated infra, and (b) if something ever does happen, a court is really not going to take this line of reasoning very well, so be careful with it... even if in practice it's how you consider it.
I'm completely in favor of building dedicated infrastructure, but I can't do that by myself. (Also, how do you prevent pedestrians from crossing said dedicated infrastructure without looking? Should it be fenced off? But I agree that there are better and worse implementations of dedicated bike lanes.)
What would you suggest cyclists do until that happens? Never go faster than walking speed? Then I can leave my bike at home. Cycle on the road, where cars can hit me, instead of the dedicated bike lane, use of which is often mandatory?
> a court is really not going to take this line of reasoning very well
A court will rule in favor of the pedestrian stepping onto a bike lane without looking getting hit by a bike that's too close to do anything?
> What would you suggest cyclists do until that happens? Never go faster than walking speed? Then I can leave my bike at home. Cycle on the road, where cars can hit me, instead of the dedicated bike lane, use of which is often mandatory?
I don't know where you live but it's quite unusual here to be cycling through areas that have a lot of pedestrians. If the bike lane is a dedicated one, pedestrians are very rarely in it. But yes if all else fails, the road is preferable to the pavement if you're unwilling to cycle slowly enough.
> how do you prevent pedestrians from crossing said dedicated infrastructure without looking?
That's a UX problem. You can also ask how to prevent cars driving on the cycle lane. Which we do in a multitude of ways. You just need to physically communicate segregation and danger.
> A court will rule in favor of the pedestrian stepping onto a bike lane without looking getting hit by a bike that's too close to do anything?
Here, absolutely, if they consider the cyclist is going too fast for the conditions. There's a concept of a hierarchy whereby the more vulnerable class is almost assumed not to be at fault. Same for a car hitting a cyclist, or a motorbike, even.
> If the bike lane is a dedicated one, pedestrians are very rarely in it.
Pedestrians step onto the dedicated bike lane I use to commute on average at least once per way for me.
> But yes if all else fails, the road is preferable to the pavement if you're unwilling to cycle slowly enough.
Of course I'm taking the road if there's no dedicated bike lane. Cycling faster than walking speed on the sidewalk seems reckless to me.
> That's a UX problem. You can also ask how to prevent cars driving on the cycle lane. Which we do in a multitude of ways. You just need to physically communicate segregation.
Yes, but I can only use the bike lane that already exists. Of course I prefer the ones with better UX.
> There's a concept of a hierarchy whereby the more vulnerable class is almost assumed not to be at fault.
Not where I live. You are allowed to e.g. trust adult pedestrians without any visible signs of impairment to not randomly step into the road. Otherwise, driving cars next to sidewalks or crossing intersections would only be possible at walking speed as well.
Of course, if you already see somebody approaching the road, somebody walking unsteadily, visibly intoxicated etc. you are obliged to still brake. The question here is whether visible noise-cancelling headphones would be considered a similar visible impairment, I suppose.
Personally, I just always assume I haven't been noticed, because ultimately I don't want to run somebody over even if I would be legally in the clear. That's a different story, though.
Our bike lanes are just a line on the sidewalk and pedestrians routinely walk on them, cross the sidewalk in them without looking, let their toddlers/pets run into them, etc. Also, nobody realizes that a bicycle bell means "someone is coming", so they just ignore it as background noise.
I had to mount an airhorn onto my bike. At least people listen to that, though it's so loud I only use it in emergencies.
Bicycle bells are mostly for warning pedestrians when approaching from behind and passing on shared-use trails. I ride on shared infrastructure and cannot afford to build new infrastructure when my town will not. Not warning a pedestrian when approaching from behind introduces the possibility of collision if the pedestrian makes a sudden change in his walking course. I typically use this etiquette:
Passing a single pedestrian or runner on a quiet day: no bell, coasting for a short bit with a loud free hub (the rotating ratchet element on the rear wheel) alerts the pedestrian to my presence.
Passing a runner: normal ring from a distance so they have knowledge that the bicycle is passing
Passing a cyclist: one loud ring from a distance
Passing a pedestrian walking a dog: two loud rings, one far, one close, so that the pedestrian is aware of the approaching bicycle and he can prevent his dog from running at me/colliding. Many dogs do seem to enjoy a bicycle chase.
Antisocial pedestrians (i.e., walking side-by-side such as to be blocking the path in both directions, preventing the bicyclist from passing): several loud rings of the bell until the antisocial activity has abated. Announcements in my local tongue (not English) that they impede the flow of traffic.
Right it has a wider non-emergency comms purpose, I do this too. But I wouldn't do it and assume they've heard or understood, and so overtake too fast on that assumption. The overtake should be safe regardless.
Spending some time in Germany from Holland I notice there is a significant difference in cycling etiquette :)
Especially regarding “passing a cyclist” which also touches on the essential difficulty with having only one “ring” sound.
Always when Germans pass me on the bike and they ring I get slightly annoyed because I interpret it as a “get out of the way” ring, and I feel like there is enough space. But perhaps it’s just the cautious “don’t do anything unexpected” ring.
A Dutch person would rarely ring at another cyclist in the former way. But they also might be less safety focused while cycling (see also: helmet usage). Or we have safer infrastructure already.
On a road bike, however, I too ring at pedestrians “preemptively”. For sure GPs remark of “if you need to ring you’re going too fast” applies here but that’s the essence of road cycling.
Ironically I’m also annoyed when road cyclists ring at me for the same reason.
Just shows the case for having 2 clearly different types of rings.
I ring a very nice bell and can "mute" the bell (touching it with my hand to stop the ring just after thumbing the striker), so when ringing for information rather than hazard, it's a short quick ring, rather than a long loud ring.
Signs here alert cyclists to warn when passing, so certainly this etiquette is considered normal, but also I imagine it is not universal to all regions.
This is exactly the same thing with the car horn: in some countries it seems to be used for "hey you, unprotected person, do NOT swerve right now, I am passing you with my car" versus in Sweden where I live, your'e not allowed that usage at all.
Also in Sweden, you do only use the bell if really needed.
As a Dutch person, I experience exactly this dilemma: ringing the bell feels like telling people to get out of the way, when often there is plenty of space for me to pass through, but I know that there's a significant chance that they're going to veer into my way if they don't know I'm coming.
Of course, ringing my bell will often cause people to veer into the way, too. But then if you ring at a sufficient distance, you risk them not hearing it. Except there's no way to tell if they're not hearing it, or just consciously not veering into the way, and in the latter case, you don't want to ring again, because that will sound even more impatient.
Etiquette is hard.
(And yes, I want cars to have a bicycle bell too, so they can greet people without jump-scaring me.)
I've been a cyclist in SF and in Amsterdam, both for many years.
In SF I used my bell much more aggressively. It was mainly for cars, if I'm in or entering their blind spot and my spidey sense tells me they are considering an action that places me in danger. For example, we all know when driving when the car in front of us is thinking about merging, even before they indicate (often I feel like I know before they do). I also used it for pedestrians stepping out into the street who are maybe looking past me for oncoming cars but somehow don't see me, or when approaching 'blind' situations like a sharp corner, a driver pulling out of a driveway but there is a tree between us, delivery drivers stepping out from their truck, etc. I can't say how many accidents have been prevented (the person may have eventually looked and seen me), but I can say that my bell has triggered people to look and see me earlier than they were going to had I not rang it.
In Amsterdam my bell is used much more sparingly. It's mostly for tourists stepping into (or considering stepping into) the bike lane. If they are already in the bike lane, I almost always prefer just to slow down a bit and dodge them, as ringing the bell often triggers a deer-caught-in-headlight moment or erratic behavior, which increases the chance of an accident or that I have to come to a full stop. The other situation is to express dissatisfaction at cars blocking bike lanes, cars/bikes not yielding, drivers blocking intersections, or other dangerous behavior. This isn't preventing an accident but I'd argue it is still important, as social control affects how often we make bad decisions. Outside the city I also use my bell to let other cyclists know I'm passing.
So yeah, I'd say bells prevent accidents, but obviously not as well as good biking infrastructure, where pedestrians, bikes, and cars have clear separate spaces, and visibility of cyclists to drivers is high.
If you are a sane person, absolutely not!! You _try_ the bell, if people react, then you go. Many times it just confuses people or people ignore it.
If you are a high-speed maniac and _rely_ on the bell to clear a path for you... then yeah. But you are then also likely to take great risks in general and will probably be in other accidents...
There are a lot of runners on mixed use paths wearing headphones these days. They are an absolute danger to overtaking bikes. A bell they would hear would be useful.
It's hard for me to understand why people choose to walk around in public wearing headphones. I'm aware that it's incredibly common, but you put yourself at risk of theft, accident, and of course the mild hearing loss that accompanies _any_ frequent headphone usage. In the case of both theft and accident, you cannot hear your assailant coming, and miss the queues that would otherwise keep you safe.
I think it's time for some sort of a safety standard for a sound frequency to be reserved exclusively for alarm/alert use and that ANC systems have to let through.
It goes without saying, use of said frequency should be prohibited for other purposes, especially marketing.
as soon they do that all kind of companies will start abusing it, for example the sound of all smart phone notification will use exactly that frequency
I think this is a really bad idea unless paired with some regime that penalizes inappropiate use of alarms - and most societies don't treat noise pollution as a real problem. For example, people honk all the time even when there are no safety issues. Or have misconfigured home/car alarms. Outlawing using ANC for blocking "fake alarms" only makes the problem worse.
Regular alarm sounds already do that, because above 1kHz or so it's the cushioning in the device that does the majority of the cancelling. There's a dip in effectiveness before that because to cancel noise effectively it's best to have a latency lower than a quarter of the wave's period.
Also ANC works best on wide-spectrum sounds, so any kind of siren or the cries of a child will go through, as the spectrum is a series of narrow peaks.
Ha, I had the same idea before I realized it’ll just be used for ads. It would be cool for pilots’ announcements on a flight, or approaching stations on the train etc. But CVS will use it to tell you to download their app and enroll in ExtraCare Rewards. Or “Did you know you may be due for more than fourteen vaccines all at no cost to you?”
In the roads near my office (central London), which are seldom used by cars, several pedestrians at a time very often walk down the road or diagonally cross the road head in phone. You can get very close and the still don’t notice (the slower you are, the quieter you become so even less likely to hear you).
I’m not sure arguing against a bell is helpful - people need to look on any road, especially with the advent of quiet electric cars.
Sure is helpful, because it goes like this: pedestrians first -> then cyclists -> then motorists.
You may notice that in this worldview (one which I find very hard to argue against) cyclists should give priority to pedestrians, no questions asked. I don't care about fancy bells or whatever, no-one takes those into consideration even when we (us, pedestrians, that is) can hear them because, and I repeat, cyclists are not as important as pedestrians are.
You may not care about fancy bells but you will care about loud honking close to your ears in my very recent experience from the streets of Shanghai. You don't have absolute priority just because you are a pedestrian.
> Why can't the cyclists slow down when they see that there's a human obstacle in front of them?
Because if the space is limited and they actually want to get somewhere, they just don't have time for that? And slowing down often means stopping and causing a traffic jam.
Note that I mostly agree with what you wrote (and I give priority to pedestrians when I'm riding my bike) but there are different situations that have to be taken into account.
Where I live, generally if you're allowed to use a road or a lane, you have equal rights to others using it. On a road, cyclists have equal rights to motorists; on shared lanes, pedestrians don't have special rights and are expected to walk near the edge.
Your worldview (mostly) applies to pedestrian crossings but that's the extent of it.
I think that’s probably quite a selfish world view (and also quite arrogant to claim your own view is hard to argue against - of course you would find it hard to argue against, that is moot…)
When there is infrastructure to support all 3 kinds of users, it seems a lot more equitable for everyone to use the space cooperatively.
I absolutely agree one should give way to more vulnerable road users, but that all 3 can have better outcomes (safety, speed of journey, efficiency etc) it all use it cooperatively and conscientiously.
To labour the point, on shared cycle and pedestrian paths with a line down the middle, does a bell ring combined with slowing down to a safe speed not seem like an appropriate warning?
I've lost count of the times I've been riding at walking pace behind someone, on a shared path, waiting to get past because they're completely oblivious to the bell ringing, politely asking, or even flashing lights.
Generally I am pretty accommodating of pedestrians and give them a wide berth but sometimes they do some pretty obnoxious things like walk six abreast or cut right in front of you erratically without looking.
I have very little time for people who freely absolve themselves of their personal responsibility to be aware of their surroundings and we shouldn't be encouraging people to zone out of society just so they can consume more.
I am comfortable cycling slower than walking pace and if I am in a real rush for speed I will cycle on the road but sometimes pedestrians can cause serious cycling accidents even when you're careful or slow.
There are often a LOT of human obstacles, and we have places to be! I slow down a bit but I don’t have a lot of patience for total unawareness. I don’t find this to be an issue with riding in the city because I ride on the road or in bike lanes. But when I go trail riding, it’s very annoying when people take up the trail and do not hear or react to my bell. Sometimes the situation is such that it is difficult to stop or evade the person, such as during a technical descent. If you’re out on the woods, there is really no excuse not to be aware of your surroundings.
> Why can't the cyclists slow down when they see that there's a human obstacle in front of them?
They usually do. (The considerate and/or non-confrontational ones. There are always idiots, and people have the tendency to remember negative outliers and project their behavior on the group as a whole, which is unfortunate.) However, slowing down isn't the whole story. Riding a non-motorized bicycle is much easier if the rider can keep moving, however slowly, so it would be considerate in turn for the pedestrian to step aside and let the cyclist pass, if possible. A distracted pedestrian can be warned by a bell.
Separately, delivery riders as a category have an incentive to ride as quickly as possible, which is a recipe for conflict. Removing that incentive means removing or completely reimagining the service. I don't think that anybody has a solution or mitigation at present.
The stupidity that makes depriving one of your senses seem like a sensible thing to do in a busy chaotic environment.
I don’t actually mind people doing that though. What is annoying is the entitled attitude that there should be no consequence for that choice, and everyone else should orbit/compensate around their lack of situational awareness.
Yes, but I would consider it somewhat rude to use the bell in a space where both bikes and pedestrians are allowed. If it would be required to be used regularly, I'd say the path is badly designed.
I used to commute to work by bike in ~1M city in Europe, mostly on dedicated bike lanes, but some shared, and had just the smallest, barely audible bell, only because it was required by law. I don't remember using it much at all. I don't know what the problem is. Maybe the Londoners should take a good look at themselves.
I agree that on a footpath pedestrians should be treated as having priority.
A semi-common way I use my bell: when on a shared footpath with plenty of space to take over, I often use my bell when I'm still ten meters away, so that I don't give pedestrians are heart attack by suddenly dashing right past them.
(I have a nice ding dong bell. They don't seem to mind. It also helps that I often have a cheerful five year old in the back.)
I do that. This was never a problem, as the ANC ones I used don't cancel every sound the same way.
For example, I can go into datacenter and it will cancel all the datacenter noise(aside for when air blows directly into mic, it overdrives it) but I can still hear what other person is saying.
Also I used them to generally listen to podcast so there was no wall of music to go thru, so sirens and such were easily discernable
You do you but as a cyclist you are super vulnerable to all manner of things and I'd never want to give up that kind of awareness.
If you listen carefully you can usually hear a cyclist behind you who may want to pass or is passing you, and having headphones probably makes that a lot harder
People shouldn't really be walking around in public with ANC on. It's not safe. Not a simple problem to solve except maybe to inform people better upon buying/setting up ANC-enabled devices.
or cyclists should have their own lanes, pedestrians shouldn't walk on them - and vice versa. and if you're stuck behind someone slow just overtake them when you can.
Safe or not - it is up to individual to decide if it is worth the risk.
The sense of entitlement of cyclists knows no bounds. If cars are liable for running over cyclists then cyclists must be liable for running over pedestrians.
I used to live in a city where I would walk everywhere but I had the constant fear of cyclists running over me because they would drive all over the pavements without any regard for pedestrians. Imagine walking and having to look around all the time. I find it amusing how people in websites like this one talk about how we have to be very afraid of cars when the true terror, at least for me, were cyclists.
And when you must walk with your small dog on a section of road where suddenly high speed e-cyclists zoom past you, now that's constant terror. At times you really get killer ideas.
Why are they walking around with ANC, you think? Maybe the sound of traffic (cars). They're also the ones posing the danger to cyclists and pedestrians. The solution is simple.
That would never work. Have you never been mindlessly walking and stepped on a bike way without realizing? Cities are for people after all. There's also so many places where bikes and pedestrians share the way, like roads under construction, and shared streets. We need to stop thinking of cities as these perfect automated places where humans are not welcome.
The presentation looks like marketing overkill, their solution looks pretty simple. It‘s just two trills „Trillerwerk“ bells combined. It was the standard in Germany until the late 1990s https://youtu.be/-mW7dWHDivo
The real problem is that cyclists and pedestrians apparently in some countries share space commonly enough that this is necessary?
In the Netherlands, bicycle utopia, I cannot remember the last time I used my bell to alert a pedestrian of my existence. Granted, I never cycle in Amsterdam, but that is a special location where high-powered ship horns are probably required.
Regarding ANC, I naturally turn it off while cycling on my Bose Quiet Comfort II, as the ANC will try (and fail) to cancel the noise from the wind. I don't think this is a solved problem? So for bicycle-to-bicycle alerting, this also seems overkill.
I dislike the smug condescending tone of your comment. Not everyone lives in the "cycle utopia" Netherlands. For some of those that don't live there, this could be a game changer and life saver since its easier to buy a bell than wait for your city to build you segregated cycle lanes.
Personally, I see no use for this bell since in Austria bicycles share the road space with cars, trucks and trams rather than pedestrians, which could be more dangerous, and what I would need is a bicycle bell that could penetrate car enclosures so that drivers would get off their phones and pay attention to the stuff around them.
Yes, I know, ideally there should be dedicated cycle lanes only for bicycles but nothing in life is ever ideal, and the city isn't gonna do that anytime soon since that would mean completely eliminating car traffic on the narrow streets, witch would be political suicide, so a bell would be an instant life saver.
I don't mean to disagree that there are situations where this is useful. I'm just trying to offer the perspective from a situation where the root cause as I see it has been fixed (to a high degree).
The OP seemed to suggest that people wearing ANC headgear should stop doing so, but both the bell and the ANC-wearing pedestrians are a non-issue in my lived experience.
It would be a shame if these "cyclist-pedestrian ANC-wars" distract from the real issue, that cyclists are not, but should be, a fully emancipated participant in traffic and infrastructure should be designed with cars (to a degree), bicyclists AND pedestrians in mind.
> I'm just trying to offer the perspective from a situation where the root cause as I see it has been fixed (to a high degree).
Your argument was not a solution. You just said, "NL fixd this, why haven't other countries?" which doesn't add any value.
Have you considered that other cities/countries can't just add infrastructure that hasn't been designed from the start to accommodate bikes the same way NL has without taking space away from pedestrians or cars as the roads have stayed as narrow as back in the 1800s?
And that fixing it is not a switch you can just turn on on a whim, but requires decades of political and societal change around repurposing infrastructure, plus capital, before consensus is achieved? Democracies are complicated, even moreson in times like these.
What do you do until then, when a bell is an instant improvement?
You're commenting off the sidelines without realizing why most countries can't flip a switch and become NL overnight.
>It would be a shame if these "cyclist-pedestrian ANC-wars" distract from the real issue, that cyclists are not, but should be, a fully emancipated participant in traffic and infrastructure should be designed with cars (to a degree), bicyclists AND pedestrians in mind.
Yeah but what do you do if they are? There's no ANC wars here, Skoda just made a better bell. Are you also against the development of better bicycle helmets, because where you live you don't need them? Like yes sure, infrastructure is the real solution, but what do you do until that arrives?
I was not trying to offer a solution, as this will be highly specific to the situation in your locality and pretty pointless for me to spend time on. I am merely identifying this as a root cause, which for some reason strikes a nerve.
Why does Skoda, a car manufacturer, care so much about interactions between cyclists and pedestrians? As you say, a bell that penetrates the car enclosures would be much more useful. I suspect a similar reason why pro-safety helmet lobby groups in NL received a lot of funding from these same car manufacturers. I digress..
For your information, post-WWII infrastructure developments in NL were initially highly car-friendly. This only started to change in the 70s and 80s, when the government started to actually create bicycle-related traffic policy, after collective protests (e.g. popular pro-bicycle protest songs were written, children refused to go to schools unless bicycle paths were laid, etc.) also helped by the oil crisis of the time.
So, no it can't be fixed overnight, but it can be fixed in reasonable time (and not an unspecified amount of decades, political capital and funding). We are even living through a repeated history right now.
These things take both time and massive political will.
As somebody living in a city that's quite bike friendly, all things concerned, but still not close to Dutch or Danish levels of biking safety, I'll take any "technical solutions that try to solve social/political problems" I can get to make my commute safer.
Also, anything that makes biking feel safer will make more people try commuting by bike, which in turn increases the political will to change traffic laws and space use. Nothing exists in a vacuum.
Yes, company Škoda is from Czech Republic where we have shared-use paths for cyclists and pedestrians. It is not "necessary". You should not be wearing noise canceling headphones while being in traffic - it makes you more liable in case of accidents.
I don't know why, but sometimes this is done intentionally.
In my (Dutch) city, there is this infuriating piece of road where the bicycle path suddenly gets routed onto the kerb, intentionally mixing bikes and pedestrians. I believe the theory is that bikes will go slower so pedestrians don't need to worry about crossing the road as much or something.
Predictably, lots bikes are taken by surprise, either brake hard and suddenly or fly through pedestrians (who the biker thinks are in their bike lane, because they would be two meters earlier).
In my experience, when bikes and pedestrians meet, one of the two groups is in the wrong place and should be watching out/slowing down and waiting.
The example video shows various instances of pedestrians walking in bike lanes (and seemingly being surprised at the sudden appearance of a bike there). You can't fix stupid, but at least you can tell them to get off the bike path.
> In my (Dutch) city, there is this infuriating piece of road where the bicycle path suddenly gets routed onto the kerb, intentionally mixing bikes and pedestrians. I believe the theory is that bikes will go slower so pedestrians don't need to worry about crossing the road as much or something.
That is an unfortunate, probably experimental?, traffic design choice...
I wish my city only had a single case like that. Unfortunately, in Tallinn, it is extremely common that a bike path is suddenly routed onto the curb, and that's when you're lucky. For some paths, the path just... ends, and you suddenly find yourself right in the middle of car traffic. Unfortunately, the city leadership is anti-bike and pro-car, and it shows in the infrastructure.
Paths where pedestrians and bikers (and other light transportation vehicles) are mixed are overwhelmingly common.
This could serve as the blueprint I guess, skip to the part about the 70s and 80s protests. Collective and popular protests helped by an oil crisis, recognizing vested interests in other modes of transportation (cars) that might want to work against your efforts.
Yes, but again, what's your problem with additionally taking steps to make things safer? Unless you somehow see technologies such as this distracting from creating a safer environment. But this was developed by Skoda, so I doubt that if they hadn't done this, they would have lobbied for more bike lanes instead.
I dont have issues with taking additional steps to make things safer, I have an issue with this solution serving as a vehicle for the marketing of the inevitability of the problem (of cyclists and pedestrians sharing space) by a car manufacturer obviously interested in this problem continuing to exist.
What's your easy technical solution to improve common sense, then? Or is it the all time classic of "just improving society"? I'm all ears for your ideas.
I have to agree here. The amount of cyclists I see with full over the ear headphones on-- if these guys are blarning tunes, there is no way they'll every hear the traffic around them. Extremely dangerous.
Seems to be some misunderstanding of what bike bells are for here...
A bell is helpful in a situation where a pedestrian is not aware of an approaching bike. The bell informs the pedestrian of two things:
1. That there is an approaching bike.
2. Roughly were the bike is approaching from.
The hope is that the pedestrian will then behave in a predictable way to allow a safe pass by the bike. In almost all cases the pedestrian will be able to simply continue doing what they were doing before they heard the bell.
If a pedestrian can not hear bike bells, for whatever reason, that is not a problem. They can just stay consistent with the centreline of the path/road/way. They then have a responsibility to shoulder check when shifting from side to side.
Draw a line, say this is for bicycles, pedestrians and cars have no business here, and bikes have no business being on any other lane as long as these exist.
When bikes have to go through areas where people walk freely, they need to limit their speed to a walking pace.
People should not wear headphones (noise-cancelling or not) when going through traffic as pedestrians. Take them off when crossing!
People should not hear loud music when driving - max is normal speaking voice level. Bike drivers should never hear any music, let alone wearing headphones. Behind-ear speakers on low could be a compromise.
If "shouldn't" worked we'd have no industrial accidents without any safety measures, no unwanted pregnancies and in general would more or less achieve heaven on Earth.
How do we enforce seatbelts? (1) Assume the public aren't stupid. (2) Assume the public aren't murderers. (3) Explain the risk-benefit analysis through informative videos like https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Julie_(1998_film).
People can shout "domestic terror" all they like, but if it's not true, it's not true.
You are answering different question. What you are saying is called awareness campaign or something. Enforcement of seatbelts is done by police with fines/tickets and is possible cause it's visible from outside.
Other things like loudness levels inside cars cannot be monitored without going in full totalitarian mode.
Why would enforcement be necessary, given assumptions 1 and 2 (not stupid, not murderers), and awareness? Around these parts, seatbelt enforcement isn't necessary because everyone voluntarily wears their seatbelt – except for children, occasionally, but the adults are generally capable of enforcing that. (Even teenagers / young adults being irresponsible in cars generally wear seatbelts while doing so.)
Wearing a seatbelt cost next to nothing in inconvenience. Not being able to listen to music or have phone calls with noise cancellation while walking does not really compare.
Of course this requires compensating for the loss in awareness through hearing by looking more diligently before crossing a bike lane, but unfortunately, some people never learn this, or only through a few close calls.
"Annoyingly" ringing a bell and converting a potential accident into a close call seems pretty close to optimal to me.
"Next to nothing in inconvenience" is the perception now. It certainly wasn't the perception when seatbelts were introduced. The ability to listen to personal music while walking is less than 50 years old: before that, you had the radio or nothing. Even that would not be an intolerable inconvenience for most. But I was more thinking:
> People should not hear loud music when driving - max is normal speaking voice level.
which feels like a more than acceptable constraint to me.
> People should not hear loud music when driving - max is normal speaking voice level.
Oh, completely agreed on that one. In a car, you are also by far better protected than any cyclists you might encounter, so you shouldn't make it harder to hear their signaling. (I still wouldn't rely on any car having heard my bell if I don't get any other confirmation that the driver has noticed me, e.g. sufficiently slowing down as they are approaching the intersection where I have right of way.)
But GGP also said
> People should not wear headphones (noise-cancelling or not) when going through traffic as pedestrians. Take them off when crossing!
and that's what I think goes too far. Why should I remove my headphones if I look both ways before crossing a bike lane or road?
The ideal rule would of course be that only those pedestrians remove their headphones that are otherwise inattentive... Although I have my doubts that they'd remember.
> Draw a line, say this is for bicycles, pedestrians and cars have no business here, and bikes have no business being on any other lane as long as these exist.
This is the reality in many cities, if it weren't for the hopefully not surprising fact that people don't always obey traffic laws perfectly.
Unfortunately, the UK seems almost incapable of building usable cycle infrastructure (possibly excepting London). Your idea is just a recipe for magic protective paint and even more abuse of cyclists who don't want to be forced to use ridiculously badly designed infrastructure. e.g. Here in Bristol, we have an infamous shared cycle/pedestrian pavement along Coronation Rd that has a few trees completely blocking the cycle side which just means conflict between pedestrians and cyclists who have to fight over the scraps left over from motorists taking most of the space (https://www.google.com/maps/@51.4462522,-2.6064792,3a,75y,80...).
No, you didn't. And restricting cyclists and pedestrians will not result in even small dent in the numbers of maimed or killed people in traffic. It's one mode of transport that's responsible for the vast amount of it, and that's the motorized one propelling several tonnes.
> and bikes have no business being on any other lane as long as these exist
And cars have no business being on other roads as long as highways exist ;)
I genuinely had a similar thought a few days ago while riding my motorbike; I had my AirPods on with noise cancelling, and I was like: I wish there was something that would alert me to horns/bells ... not that AirPods are super efficient at cancelling background noise but still!
Next challange: Place a camera in front of the bike that scans approaching pedestrians. Calculate their head position and trajectory. Use directional speakers and focused sound beams to focus the ~780Hz sound towards the head(s) of the pedestrian(s). Now that you are not bothering the environment as much, you can increase the volume as well.
I would love that but not so much for pedestrians as for cars that don't see me on my bike. Ideally, the "bell" would automatically honk at them very loudly when they get too close.
I carry air horn. Great for dogs and aggressive cyclists. Pedestrians have no obligation to jump into ditch, to clear walking path for speeding cyclists!
In Germany we have rules, and one of those rules is that pedestrians on the sidewalk who are in the cyclepath (usually a too-subtle red stone) do, in fact, have to get out of the way for cyclists.
I imagine there's also a rule about directing airhorns against law abiding cyclists.
I find the "Heard five seconds earlier, the difference between a serious collision and stepping aside" take hilarious. As if there is no other way to prevent a collision in five seconds other than the pedestrian getting out of the way.
As much as I get the urge to plow through pedestrians on bike paths (and stay proudly in the way of bikes on pedestrian paths), in real life, normal people don't do that kind of thing. Bikes have brakes for a reason.
This bell would be illegal in Denmark, where our laws clearly state that you are only allowed one signal giving device and that any signal giving devices attached to vehicles (including bikes) can only produce one constant sound.
Really? I would have guessed you could argue that it qualifies as „one signal giving device“ since it is one single piece of equipment (ie the horn in a car also has many parts, but it‘s presumably fine) and also that it „only produces one constant sound“, where that sound is composed of different frequencies (again, car horns probably don‘t have a pure tone in Denmark either, right?).
Not entirely the same in Norway, but the rule as written is roughly translated "Sound signal: A bike should have a bell. Other signalling devices are prohibited".
Doesn't stop me from using an AirZound or digital airhorn. Saved me countless times. Like a bell is heard by a driver blasting their stereo while checking their phone, slowly veering into the cycle lane.
Here's my hot take: just get rid of bicycle bells and horns altogether. When's the last time you heard one and were usefully informed about some behavioral change to avoid accident? How often does that happen as opposed to needless use of the bell/horn, or not noticing it for whatever reason (let's be charitable and exclude use of ANC headphones, but include general noise levels and boy-who-cried-wolf). How often is it just a jump scare, making traffic less safe?
Just ride/drive a bit more thoughtfully so you don't hurt people, even if they're deaf.
It is amazing they openly shared their findings [0], but one thing I am missing is what this design would cost if put into mass production. To the biggest layman possible, it reads like while the design is clever and would be more expensive by virtue of more materials/size alone, it's not impractical, but maybe someone more informed on this type of manufacturing can correct my ignorance. If that's the case, hopefully we'll see these designs on the market soon as even with music+ANC, I have found certain sounds to be able to easily penetrate through when listening, though that is purely subjective and I don't have my music earbleedingly loud...
Cool idea. But bizarre that they worked with Deliveroo. Bike bells were designed for a time when cyclists travelled at speeds where you could safely get out of the way.
Most "independent" cyclists do cycle safely.
But delivery riders for delivery platforms commonly use illegally modified e-bikes. Platforms have the GPS data. They must know.
They could make huge improvements in safety by actively preventing the use of illegally modified e-bikes that travel too fast.
>They could make huge improvements in safety by actively preventing the use of illegally modified e-bikes that travel too fast.
Or by regulating bicycle food delivery services so thatheir employees' continued employment and wage magnitude doesn't hinge quite so thoroughly on how rapidly they deliver.
I have noticed I can make a less sharp sound with my bike bell by ringing it a certain way. I use this to let pedestrians know I am coming but that they don't have to jump out of the way.
On a serious note there’s a marketing problem in my view: who out there who chooses to buy a bell even considers that their might be a loudness problem? It’s not immediately obvious that I need this and I’m sure there’s a premium price attached.
In effect they are, even if not directly. There are requirements to stay aware of your surroundings. If you cause an accident by blocking all sounds, I totally can see insurance companies claiming this is your own responsibility and refusing to cover.
It's not about the cyclists wearing ANC headsets (which is already prohibited at least in Euro countries), but about pedestrians wearing them. Another problem altogether.
i’m on airpods pro 3, and it’s far from producing noise-cancellation so powerful as to require such measures. perhaps if I’m listening to heavy music at ear-damaging levels. maybe my hearing is too sensitive.
The problem with headphones is not noise cancellation. It’s the fact they play music.
My regular Widek bell penetrates ANC, but when there’s music, ANC or not, it’s hard to hear. I’m struggling to believe the claims this bell is going to be significantly better.
If this bell gets through ANC then yes it will help people with ANC. It's not an all or nothing situation, you hear it further away for each increase in loudness.
Also, ANC let's you reduce your music volume for the same signal to noise ratio.
750 Hz. Baby crying sound is around 300-400 Hz and let me tell you my airpods pro definitely let me hear the baby cry. I think Apple built that as an obvious safety feature.
Interestingly, all the shrillness noises (chalkboard, balloon or polystyrene screech) are in similar frequency too.
I've noticed some trains are playing extremely loud announcements (Elizabeth line for example) which makes me think they're trying to penetrate headphones and earphones
Guess why I wear noise cancelling headphones on trains? Because of the excessive announcements!
(I mean seriously excessive. Because in the UK the answer to everything is to create another announcement or poster)
Well, sure, as soon as infrastructure exists so the alternative isn't "get run over by a homicidal driver". And actual infrastructure, not painted lines that typically get filled up with double-parking cars.
I don't know where you're from, but in Germany for example, there are countless situations where cyclists and pedestrians share the same space, or pedestrians can (or just do…) cross bicycle lanes. I'm a very law-abiding cyclist since witnessing a few horrible accidents, and yet I encounter situations with headphone-wearing pedestrians regularly. Often I'll ring my bell to no avail, until driving right up to them, and they still won't hear me. This is really frustrating; I'm definitely in the market for this.
I am aware that most countries do not have dedicated roads for cyclists, but that doesn't mean that cyclists should be using sidewalks. When I go out and walk on the sidewalk, I expect to be able to just walk safely without having to think about potential riders of bicycles or other things that people ride on sidewalks.
Then it's a stupid law. But from the image that other commenter gave, it does look like Germany has space that is clearly intended for cyclists, and I have no issue with that. I have issue with instances when people cycle on sidewalks intended for pedestrians.
It's not always as clearly demarcated as on that picture; sometimes there's just a sign.
I would also argue that a reasonably broad way for pedestrians and bicyclists can be shared without any issue, if both parties pay some modicum of attention to their surroundings and treat each other with mutual respect: Pedestrians by keeping to the right side of the path, and cyclists by slowing down when overtaking and ringing the bell to let people know they are approaching.
> I'm a very law-abiding cyclist since witnessing a few horrible accidents, and yet I encounter situations with headphone-wearing pedestrians regularly. Often I'll ring my bell to no avail, until driving right up to them, and they still won't hear me. This is really frustrating; I'm definitely in the market for this.
I’m guessing some law (law-abiding) gives you the right to bother people who are using their own feet instead of wheels because you want to pass them and they should have to actively watch out for you and yield to you? Okay, that part is fine. But I don’t see how it is nice or, I dunno, ethical.
In my experience (in my locale) as a cyclist you either give pedestrians a wide enough berth, dismount so that you can pass them if it is crowded and there is no passage, or use the vehicular road.
I remember violating this one time when I belled someone that I wanted to pass on the sidewalk. But I was a child at the time. Even more self-centered than I am now.
These seeming rules for yielding to cyclists are worse than the laws and norms when cars interact with bicycles, by the way. At least where I am: cars never honk cyclists. They have to wait for them or find a window to pass them safely. They can’t honk them into the ditch or something.
> I’m guessing some law (law-abiding) gives you the right to bother people who are using their own feet instead of wheels because you want to pass them and they should have to actively watch out for you and yield to you? Okay, that part is fine. But I don’t see how it is nice or, I dunno, ethical.
No. There are just people who will walk on a designated bicycle lane because they haven't seen the signage, are ignorant or careless about it, or will just cross it to get somewhere else. All while wearing ANC headphones. This isn't about bothering someone, but warning them. It's really no different from someone jaywalking without seeing you, and honking to make them aware of that. Or are you supposing you'd just break and wait until they're finished crossing the street?
If just slowing down helps to prevent an accident, not sure what the bell would be good for - except for signaling your frustration to everyone around you
e.g.: In Amsterdam you cross biking lanes to cross the roads sometimes, or bike lanes and sidewalks are so integrated, you can wander into them without noticing.
Being tired in a crowded street in rainy weather doesn't help either.
Edit 2: I originally didn’t think of the case when you want to warn pedestrians that you are passing (without asking them to give way) in case they decide to switch direction without looking if there is any incoming entities. That seems legitimate to me. Although giving a wide enough berth might be better than doing it routinely (that could amount to a lot of noise eventually).
Edit: Since people seem to go either way: It is my understanding that in my part of the world (in Scandinavia) cyclists do not have the right of way on sidewalks (which means they can’t bell people away). They also (and I know this one) do not have the right of way while cycling across road crossings. Something that most cyclists, in my experience, violate all the time.
Quite. It drives me up the wall when cyclists not only use the sidewalk close enough to me to practically graze me (pedestrian), but expect me to actively pay attention and yield to them. Use the road, dummy (there are scarce few bicycle lanes).
I use regular headphones (not over-ear and not really noise canc.) on the sidewalk but take them off when I am crossing the street. And I of course am mindful of other pedestrians. But I’m not gonna take them off because some two-wheeler thinks they can ram into me unless I jump out of the way on the sidewalk.
At least here in Austria, I honestly rarely, if ever, see them do that. Either roads or dedicated/mixed designated cycle paths. We do have enforcement even against cyclists, though more than anything, that catches all the "unlocked" e-bikes, because cycling on the sidewalks is not a thing anyone does.
Even with bikes being off the sidewalk, there is need for a quick way of getting others pedestrians attention.
This is always an odd one, as it’s the people who look like they just found a bike in a skip and decided to ride around here that cycle on the pavements.
As a cyclist in London, I’ve hit one pedestrian: they stepped backward(!) into a cycle lane. I had nowhere to go, as there was a curb on the other side. Pedestrian behaviour is just totally wild with respect to cycle lanes, a lot of them are just totally oblivious. If you cycle, you will come across people walking along or stepping into dedicated cycle lanes several times during the average commute.
this was not really an issue before food delivery apps came into fashion
btw. kids up until certain age can pretty much in all countries ride bike legally on sidewalk, are there any countries where 8yo can't ride bike on sidewalk?
I always hate having my headphones on ANC on the street. It makes me feel really exposed and disconnected. I tend to use transparency when out and about.
> In real-world trials conducted on the streets of London in February, in cooperation with Deliveroo couriers, the bell proved so effective that couriers expressed a desire to keep it.
Of course they would, because a lot of them either don’t have any bell, or have a shitty ping-ping bell that doesn’t produce good sound.
Living in a city you cannot stand so much that you wear noise cancelling headphones at all times. Commuting to work that you hate and manoeuvring between zombies looking at their phones, wearing noise cancelling headphones, and occasional cars recklessly opening doors or joining the traffic without looking in the mirrors. You even forgot the original goal of saving money because the rent eats 50% of the net salary and work eats every will to live. Here it is - the fruit of your glorious education and mean by which your mortgage is paid is bicycle bell. Thanks for reminding me to stay away from this miserable mess.
I’m more afraid of cyclists than of cars. I know exactly where the road starts and end, I know there are traffic lights drivers and pedestrians usually respect, so it’s very unlikely that I can get hit by a car. And Im talking about myself, not about the average person (I know stats may say otherwise)
But cyclists can ride in the pedestrian lane, bike lanes and pedestrians lanes are not easily distinguishable (if you are visiting a new city/country for example, and/or the painting of the lanes disappear over time) compared to roads, you typically can hear cars/motorbikes coming (though with electric cars that’s less common) while bikes are very silent, and last but not least, typically there is certain hierarchy when it comes to cars and pedestrians (at least in Europe): pedestrians come first. That’s not the case with bikes (which based on my experience, they share the same level of importance with pedestrians in the streets)
More or less at the time when electric bicycles weighing over 20kg and moving over 30kmh started to drive on sidewalks, I started to avoid living in big cities.
Coincidentally, I bought a 12v car horn yesterday with the intent of wiring it into my ebike's power supply with a little button on my handlebars.
Not because of other cyclists or pedestrians wearing (anc) headphones but because modern cars are so heavily sound-proofed they don't hear a bicycle bell anymore. A recent incident with an inattentive taxi driver in a brand new EV nearly flattening me prompted me to want to pursue this.
I'm still waiting for my cheap AliExpress dc-to-dc step down converter but otherwise I have everything I need and I think it should work. The horn module itself is definitely loud enough: I connected it to a 12v power supply at my desk and jumped out of my chair.
Do horns and bells really prevent accidents?
In order for e.g. a horn to work you need enough time that the driver processes the situation and decides the horn will communicate something AND enough time for the pedestrian or whatever to process that and react to it. Generally it's a lot easier just to press the brake, and more importantly be travelling at a speed and in a manner where the brake is sufficient.
Structurally, we'd be much better off reducing conflicts between the different tiers of users. I.e. properly segregated infrastructure for each class of vehicle.
A horn or bell is mostly for telling other people "hey I'm here, stay out of my way and dont suddenly cross into my path"
My opinion as a cyclist is that I should basically only be using my bell on pedestrians when the pedestrians are wandering onto the bike lane. If im cycling through a shared space, I find it extremely rude to ring the bell, because it feels like I'm telling people to get out of my way, but they have just as much right to a shared path as I do. Some cyclists ring their bells because they're worried a pedestrian might suddenly turn into their path, but I think if one is concerned about that, it's a sign youre cycling too fast, and should just slow down.
With cars, I will sometimes proactively ring my bell at them if I think they're not sufficiently aware enough of me though.
> With cars, I will sometimes proactively ring my bell at them if I think they're not sufficiently aware enough of me though.
There's only a few types of car that will be "aware" of cyclists and I don't think ringing a bell will help their algorithms. Getting the attention of a driver, meanwhile, is difficult with a bell as often they'll be in a semi-soundproof cage with loud music on. (Also deaf drivers are a thing).
I've never really considered using a bell for motorised traffic. I did once buy a loud air-horn, but it was so loud and abrasive that I never used it as it seemed really rude.
> I've never really considered using a bell for motorised traffic.
It works surprisingly well if the car isn't moving quickly. Cars aren't as sound isolating as you'd think. My main use-case is that a car is stopped at an intersection, or crossing my lane so they can turn, and I'm worried they'll pull out and hit me because they're looking the wrong way focused on car traffic, and in these situations they almost always hear my bell.
I think bells do have a communication use of course, just not really to be used as an emergency 'an accident is about to happen, immediately take action'.
At least a bell sounds relatively polite if you're not spamming it. A horn is a bit aggressive, you have to modulate it.
In a car I use two short tapped toots as a polite kind of 'excuse me' e.g. if someone hasn't noticed a light turning green. That seems more friendly than a sustained blast.
On the bike with a bell I'll just say thank you as I pass, if they've moved for me. Usually seems to go down well enough.
> If im cycling through a shared space, I find it extremely rude to ring the bell, because it feels like I'm telling people to get out of my way, but they have just as much right to a shared path as I do.
It’s certainly rude to ring the bell in a aggressive manner, but many bells are capable of producing much softer, more polite sounds.
In super busy old European capitals I find that people increasingly just ride around with speakers playing a constant tune at a reasonable volume, a massive improvement on dense streets full of varyingly sober people.
I still think that ringing bells at people is a little rude, regardless of the tone. Like imagine if you were at the grocery store, blocking the isle and someone lightly chimed a bell at you instead of just saying "excuse me".
IMO if I'm in a dense pedestrian zone and I can't go around people and I can't communicate by voice, it means I'm going too fast.
>blocking the isle and someone lightly chimed a bell at you instead of just saying "excuse me".
Well, at least here in Europe I’d have to spend a decent amount of time deciding which language to use.
I'm also in Europe, and I always just either say the equivalent in the local language, or just use english. Even in the smallest most remote villages, you'd be pretty hard pressed to find someone who doesn't know the word "sorry".
My solution to this is that I ring my bell when I'm far from people, usually twice while I'm still a fair way away. It just gets pedestrians conscious that there's a bike around, while also being far enough away that it's not going to surprise them and I don't think they assume it's an aggressive bell.
My least favourite is when a cyclist speeds past and shouts "on ya right" (I'm in Australia) but they shout it when they're so close that there's no chance of hearing and understanding in time.
> A horn or bell is mostly for telling other people "hey I'm here, stay out of my way and dont suddenly cross into my path"
This. I only use the bell on bike paths, too. Sometimes it feels like a game of pac-man, where baddies will wander into my path from all directions and in all kinds of ways. Cars doing a right turn, zombies staring into phones, people walking backwards (!), zombies staring into phones walking backwards, it doesn't end.
I concur. Even the best bell in the world may be utterly useless if the pedestrian happens to be deaf. Also, bicycle bells tend to polarise pedestrians - some people think that bells are rude and insisting that peds get out of the way and other people think it's dangerous and rude to not use a bell every time you overtake.
My solution is to still have a tiny bell on my road bike, but instead of using it, call out something like "can I get past, please?" or if an immediate response is required (e.g. ped blindly stepping into the road ahead of me) then yelling "Oi!" can really surprise them and make them notice you. I'm also a fan of using "Beep, beep" if a ped is on cycle infrastructure (active travel infrastructure is probably a better term) and I want to pretend that I'm an impatient driver.
I think the human voice is far superior to a bell as you can tailor the message for the situation and you don't have to move a hand away from the brakes to do so. (Using your voice is also a very good idea when approaching a horse and rider - horses know about humans and don't get freaked out if you call ahead "Morning!" or something cheery and appropriate).
On my bike commute route, I'd lose my voice before the first meeting of the day if I had to use only my voice.
I realised after a few near misses that my voice is by far the lowest latency signal method I have. If a situation suddenly seems dangerous I'll yell. Perhaps not very polite, but far more polite than hitting someone who stepped out in front of me. A bike bell probably adds a second of latency to find the bell. I'd rather use that time to brake.
The bell can be useful as a more general "I'm here" warning. But if there's any actual risk of a collision, yelling and braking are far more effective.
> Do horns and bells really prevent accidents?
They absolutely do, for indirect reasons:
> Generally it's a lot easier just to press the brake
Maybe easier, but it hardly seems fair, nor realistic.
With a bit of experience, you can tell when pedestrians are likely to stumble onto the bike lane without looking. Then you have two choices: Significantly reduce your speed, or ring your bell first and only reduce speed if they still haven't noticed the oncoming bike.
If you only reduce speed, you'll be traveling at a very low average speed, and time is money (especially for bike delivery workers, but I also hate having to sharply decelerate for people glued to their screen or otherwise completely unaware of their surroundings even if I'm not in a rush), so you can take a guess as to whether "just reducing your speed" is practicable.
I get your point about not wanting to reduce speed, but it's worth considering how the law might react in a worse-case scenario.
Here in the UK, there was an infamous case of Charlie Alliston who ended up getting a ridiculous 18 months prison sentence after colliding with a pedestrian who hit her head and subsequently died. He was riding a "fixie" without a front brake and was cycling at around 18mph through some green traffic lights. The pedestrian was crossing the road further on (i.e. not at a junction which is fairly normal) and wasn't paying enough attention, so Charlie shouted at her to get out of his way. He started to reduce speed (rear brake only), but then decided that he could just aim for the gap behind her, but she then reacted to his shouting by stepping backwards into his path.
The point is that the judge awarded such a tough sentence partly due to Charlie not taking all available actions to avoid a collision and also because his bike was illegal to use on the road due to having just one brake. So, if you rely on a bell to clear your path, you could be held liable if they don't respond and you collide.
To be clear, I am still reducing my speed if I don't get positive confirmation that I've been noticed or if there's not enough time for a reaction to even happen.
My bell just gives me the significant improvement of possibly getting a reaction from the pedestrian long before I need to start braking.
However, not everybody does cycle like that. And while legally and ethically dubious, the bell still helps in that case as well.
I don't know, the sentence doesn't sound ridiculous if you're cycliing at 18mph towards someone, without a front brake, and your precaution is "it's OK, I can guess which way they're going to go".
> If you only reduce speed, you'll be traveling at a very low average speed, and time is money
Well this is a bit of an appeal to consequences. I would say (a) this is a very good reason to build dedicated infra, and (b) if something ever does happen, a court is really not going to take this line of reasoning very well, so be careful with it... even if in practice it's how you consider it.
I'm completely in favor of building dedicated infrastructure, but I can't do that by myself. (Also, how do you prevent pedestrians from crossing said dedicated infrastructure without looking? Should it be fenced off? But I agree that there are better and worse implementations of dedicated bike lanes.)
What would you suggest cyclists do until that happens? Never go faster than walking speed? Then I can leave my bike at home. Cycle on the road, where cars can hit me, instead of the dedicated bike lane, use of which is often mandatory?
> a court is really not going to take this line of reasoning very well
A court will rule in favor of the pedestrian stepping onto a bike lane without looking getting hit by a bike that's too close to do anything?
> What would you suggest cyclists do until that happens? Never go faster than walking speed? Then I can leave my bike at home. Cycle on the road, where cars can hit me, instead of the dedicated bike lane, use of which is often mandatory?
I don't know where you live but it's quite unusual here to be cycling through areas that have a lot of pedestrians. If the bike lane is a dedicated one, pedestrians are very rarely in it. But yes if all else fails, the road is preferable to the pavement if you're unwilling to cycle slowly enough.
> how do you prevent pedestrians from crossing said dedicated infrastructure without looking?
That's a UX problem. You can also ask how to prevent cars driving on the cycle lane. Which we do in a multitude of ways. You just need to physically communicate segregation and danger.
> A court will rule in favor of the pedestrian stepping onto a bike lane without looking getting hit by a bike that's too close to do anything?
Here, absolutely, if they consider the cyclist is going too fast for the conditions. There's a concept of a hierarchy whereby the more vulnerable class is almost assumed not to be at fault. Same for a car hitting a cyclist, or a motorbike, even.
> If the bike lane is a dedicated one, pedestrians are very rarely in it.
Pedestrians step onto the dedicated bike lane I use to commute on average at least once per way for me.
> But yes if all else fails, the road is preferable to the pavement if you're unwilling to cycle slowly enough.
Of course I'm taking the road if there's no dedicated bike lane. Cycling faster than walking speed on the sidewalk seems reckless to me.
> That's a UX problem. You can also ask how to prevent cars driving on the cycle lane. Which we do in a multitude of ways. You just need to physically communicate segregation.
Yes, but I can only use the bike lane that already exists. Of course I prefer the ones with better UX.
> There's a concept of a hierarchy whereby the more vulnerable class is almost assumed not to be at fault.
Not where I live. You are allowed to e.g. trust adult pedestrians without any visible signs of impairment to not randomly step into the road. Otherwise, driving cars next to sidewalks or crossing intersections would only be possible at walking speed as well.
Of course, if you already see somebody approaching the road, somebody walking unsteadily, visibly intoxicated etc. you are obliged to still brake. The question here is whether visible noise-cancelling headphones would be considered a similar visible impairment, I suppose.
Personally, I just always assume I haven't been noticed, because ultimately I don't want to run somebody over even if I would be legally in the clear. That's a different story, though.
Our bike lanes are just a line on the sidewalk and pedestrians routinely walk on them, cross the sidewalk in them without looking, let their toddlers/pets run into them, etc. Also, nobody realizes that a bicycle bell means "someone is coming", so they just ignore it as background noise.
I had to mount an airhorn onto my bike. At least people listen to that, though it's so loud I only use it in emergencies.
A car company wanting to divert attention away from the carnage cars cause. Seems a bit suspicious no?
In Skoda's defense, it has a long tradition of making bicycles as well
Skoda is a huge sponsor of professionel cycling.
Bicycle bells are mostly for warning pedestrians when approaching from behind and passing on shared-use trails. I ride on shared infrastructure and cannot afford to build new infrastructure when my town will not. Not warning a pedestrian when approaching from behind introduces the possibility of collision if the pedestrian makes a sudden change in his walking course. I typically use this etiquette:
Passing a single pedestrian or runner on a quiet day: no bell, coasting for a short bit with a loud free hub (the rotating ratchet element on the rear wheel) alerts the pedestrian to my presence.
Passing a runner: normal ring from a distance so they have knowledge that the bicycle is passing
Passing a cyclist: one loud ring from a distance
Passing a pedestrian walking a dog: two loud rings, one far, one close, so that the pedestrian is aware of the approaching bicycle and he can prevent his dog from running at me/colliding. Many dogs do seem to enjoy a bicycle chase.
Antisocial pedestrians (i.e., walking side-by-side such as to be blocking the path in both directions, preventing the bicyclist from passing): several loud rings of the bell until the antisocial activity has abated. Announcements in my local tongue (not English) that they impede the flow of traffic.
Right it has a wider non-emergency comms purpose, I do this too. But I wouldn't do it and assume they've heard or understood, and so overtake too fast on that assumption. The overtake should be safe regardless.
I wonder if you are German?
Spending some time in Germany from Holland I notice there is a significant difference in cycling etiquette :)
Especially regarding “passing a cyclist” which also touches on the essential difficulty with having only one “ring” sound.
Always when Germans pass me on the bike and they ring I get slightly annoyed because I interpret it as a “get out of the way” ring, and I feel like there is enough space. But perhaps it’s just the cautious “don’t do anything unexpected” ring.
A Dutch person would rarely ring at another cyclist in the former way. But they also might be less safety focused while cycling (see also: helmet usage). Or we have safer infrastructure already.
On a road bike, however, I too ring at pedestrians “preemptively”. For sure GPs remark of “if you need to ring you’re going too fast” applies here but that’s the essence of road cycling.
Ironically I’m also annoyed when road cyclists ring at me for the same reason.
Just shows the case for having 2 clearly different types of rings.
(Also for cars to have a “thank you” horn, haha)
Living now in Germany :)
I ring a very nice bell and can "mute" the bell (touching it with my hand to stop the ring just after thumbing the striker), so when ringing for information rather than hazard, it's a short quick ring, rather than a long loud ring.
Signs here alert cyclists to warn when passing, so certainly this etiquette is considered normal, but also I imagine it is not universal to all regions.
This is exactly the same thing with the car horn: in some countries it seems to be used for "hey you, unprotected person, do NOT swerve right now, I am passing you with my car" versus in Sweden where I live, your'e not allowed that usage at all.
Also in Sweden, you do only use the bell if really needed.
As a Dutch person, I experience exactly this dilemma: ringing the bell feels like telling people to get out of the way, when often there is plenty of space for me to pass through, but I know that there's a significant chance that they're going to veer into my way if they don't know I'm coming.
Of course, ringing my bell will often cause people to veer into the way, too. But then if you ring at a sufficient distance, you risk them not hearing it. Except there's no way to tell if they're not hearing it, or just consciously not veering into the way, and in the latter case, you don't want to ring again, because that will sound even more impatient.
Etiquette is hard.
(And yes, I want cars to have a bicycle bell too, so they can greet people without jump-scaring me.)
I've been a cyclist in SF and in Amsterdam, both for many years.
In SF I used my bell much more aggressively. It was mainly for cars, if I'm in or entering their blind spot and my spidey sense tells me they are considering an action that places me in danger. For example, we all know when driving when the car in front of us is thinking about merging, even before they indicate (often I feel like I know before they do). I also used it for pedestrians stepping out into the street who are maybe looking past me for oncoming cars but somehow don't see me, or when approaching 'blind' situations like a sharp corner, a driver pulling out of a driveway but there is a tree between us, delivery drivers stepping out from their truck, etc. I can't say how many accidents have been prevented (the person may have eventually looked and seen me), but I can say that my bell has triggered people to look and see me earlier than they were going to had I not rang it.
In Amsterdam my bell is used much more sparingly. It's mostly for tourists stepping into (or considering stepping into) the bike lane. If they are already in the bike lane, I almost always prefer just to slow down a bit and dodge them, as ringing the bell often triggers a deer-caught-in-headlight moment or erratic behavior, which increases the chance of an accident or that I have to come to a full stop. The other situation is to express dissatisfaction at cars blocking bike lanes, cars/bikes not yielding, drivers blocking intersections, or other dangerous behavior. This isn't preventing an accident but I'd argue it is still important, as social control affects how often we make bad decisions. Outside the city I also use my bell to let other cyclists know I'm passing.
So yeah, I'd say bells prevent accidents, but obviously not as well as good biking infrastructure, where pedestrians, bikes, and cars have clear separate spaces, and visibility of cyclists to drivers is high.
"Do horns and bells really prevent accidents?"
If you are a sane person, absolutely not!! You _try_ the bell, if people react, then you go. Many times it just confuses people or people ignore it.
If you are a high-speed maniac and _rely_ on the bell to clear a path for you... then yeah. But you are then also likely to take great risks in general and will probably be in other accidents...
There are a lot of runners on mixed use paths wearing headphones these days. They are an absolute danger to overtaking bikes. A bell they would hear would be useful.
It's hard for me to understand why people choose to walk around in public wearing headphones. I'm aware that it's incredibly common, but you put yourself at risk of theft, accident, and of course the mild hearing loss that accompanies _any_ frequent headphone usage. In the case of both theft and accident, you cannot hear your assailant coming, and miss the queues that would otherwise keep you safe.
> and of course the mild hearing loss that accompanies _any_ frequent headphone usage
curious, you got any citations for this claim?
For anyone that wants to actually hear the bell before reading all the marketing material:
Bell sound starts at 2:09 in the video.
I think it's time for some sort of a safety standard for a sound frequency to be reserved exclusively for alarm/alert use and that ANC systems have to let through.
It goes without saying, use of said frequency should be prohibited for other purposes, especially marketing.
as soon they do that all kind of companies will start abusing it, for example the sound of all smart phone notification will use exactly that frequency
this sounds like an amazing idea, the govt should introduce laws so that the companies do this
I think this is a really bad idea unless paired with some regime that penalizes inappropiate use of alarms - and most societies don't treat noise pollution as a real problem. For example, people honk all the time even when there are no safety issues. Or have misconfigured home/car alarms. Outlawing using ANC for blocking "fake alarms" only makes the problem worse.
> some regime that penalizes inappropiate use of alarms
Legally, use of horns in traffic is restricted, and abuse can be punished. Doesn’t keep people from honking all the time.
It’s thoroughly unenforced, which is the problem.
Tho I like the proposal to require that manufacturers design car horns to sound as loudly inside the cabin as outside. Might make a dent.
No honk in Switzerland, some honk in Romania, all honk in India. There's no one rule to rule them all.
Regular alarm sounds already do that, because above 1kHz or so it's the cushioning in the device that does the majority of the cancelling. There's a dip in effectiveness before that because to cancel noise effectively it's best to have a latency lower than a quarter of the wave's period.
Also ANC works best on wide-spectrum sounds, so any kind of siren or the cries of a child will go through, as the spectrum is a series of narrow peaks.
However, deaf people are allowed to drive, cycle, walk etc. so sound won't always work anyway.
Ha, I had the same idea before I realized it’ll just be used for ads. It would be cool for pilots’ announcements on a flight, or approaching stations on the train etc. But CVS will use it to tell you to download their app and enroll in ExtraCare Rewards. Or “Did you know you may be due for more than fourteen vaccines all at no cost to you?”
In theory that sounds nice, but I suspect it would be much harder to make work in practice than it seems
Over engineering in real life, solving lack of common sense by introducing a solution where the cyclist is paying.
I think the solution is nice for sure, but solving the wrong problem.
Eh, it's pragmatic.
It's replacing a problem you can't solve (human stupidity), with one you can (a better bell).
Why can't the cyclists slow down when they see that there's a human obstacle in front of them?
In the roads near my office (central London), which are seldom used by cars, several pedestrians at a time very often walk down the road or diagonally cross the road head in phone. You can get very close and the still don’t notice (the slower you are, the quieter you become so even less likely to hear you).
I’m not sure arguing against a bell is helpful - people need to look on any road, especially with the advent of quiet electric cars.
Sure is helpful, because it goes like this: pedestrians first -> then cyclists -> then motorists.
You may notice that in this worldview (one which I find very hard to argue against) cyclists should give priority to pedestrians, no questions asked. I don't care about fancy bells or whatever, no-one takes those into consideration even when we (us, pedestrians, that is) can hear them because, and I repeat, cyclists are not as important as pedestrians are.
You may not care about fancy bells but you will care about loud honking close to your ears in my very recent experience from the streets of Shanghai. You don't have absolute priority just because you are a pedestrian.
> Why can't the cyclists slow down when they see that there's a human obstacle in front of them?
Because if the space is limited and they actually want to get somewhere, they just don't have time for that? And slowing down often means stopping and causing a traffic jam.
Note that I mostly agree with what you wrote (and I give priority to pedestrians when I'm riding my bike) but there are different situations that have to be taken into account.
Where I live, generally if you're allowed to use a road or a lane, you have equal rights to others using it. On a road, cyclists have equal rights to motorists; on shared lanes, pedestrians don't have special rights and are expected to walk near the edge.
Your worldview (mostly) applies to pedestrian crossings but that's the extent of it.
I think that’s probably quite a selfish world view (and also quite arrogant to claim your own view is hard to argue against - of course you would find it hard to argue against, that is moot…)
When there is infrastructure to support all 3 kinds of users, it seems a lot more equitable for everyone to use the space cooperatively.
I absolutely agree one should give way to more vulnerable road users, but that all 3 can have better outcomes (safety, speed of journey, efficiency etc) it all use it cooperatively and conscientiously.
To labour the point, on shared cycle and pedestrian paths with a line down the middle, does a bell ring combined with slowing down to a safe speed not seem like an appropriate warning?
We do slow down.
I've lost count of the times I've been riding at walking pace behind someone, on a shared path, waiting to get past because they're completely oblivious to the bell ringing, politely asking, or even flashing lights.
Generally I am pretty accommodating of pedestrians and give them a wide berth but sometimes they do some pretty obnoxious things like walk six abreast or cut right in front of you erratically without looking.
I have very little time for people who freely absolve themselves of their personal responsibility to be aware of their surroundings and we shouldn't be encouraging people to zone out of society just so they can consume more.
I am comfortable cycling slower than walking pace and if I am in a real rush for speed I will cycle on the road but sometimes pedestrians can cause serious cycling accidents even when you're careful or slow.
There are often a LOT of human obstacles, and we have places to be! I slow down a bit but I don’t have a lot of patience for total unawareness. I don’t find this to be an issue with riding in the city because I ride on the road or in bike lanes. But when I go trail riding, it’s very annoying when people take up the trail and do not hear or react to my bell. Sometimes the situation is such that it is difficult to stop or evade the person, such as during a technical descent. If you’re out on the woods, there is really no excuse not to be aware of your surroundings.
There is easy excuse, people expect other people to be rational, and to slow down a bit. Not to ride downhill at full speed.
I heard "human obstacle" last time in carmagedon!
> Why can't the cyclists slow down when they see that there's a human obstacle in front of them?
They usually do. (The considerate and/or non-confrontational ones. There are always idiots, and people have the tendency to remember negative outliers and project their behavior on the group as a whole, which is unfortunate.) However, slowing down isn't the whole story. Riding a non-motorized bicycle is much easier if the rider can keep moving, however slowly, so it would be considerate in turn for the pedestrian to step aside and let the cyclist pass, if possible. A distracted pedestrian can be warned by a bell.
Separately, delivery riders as a category have an incentive to ride as quickly as possible, which is a recipe for conflict. Removing that incentive means removing or completely reimagining the service. I don't think that anybody has a solution or mitigation at present.
Human stupidity? As in allowing too much noise in the cities to the extend that people need to protect their minds?
The stupidity that makes depriving one of your senses seem like a sensible thing to do in a busy chaotic environment.
I don’t actually mind people doing that though. What is annoying is the entitled attitude that there should be no consequence for that choice, and everyone else should orbit/compensate around their lack of situational awareness.
Stockholm is a very quiet city, people still wear noise-cancelling headphones all the time.
What is the right problem that should be solved here?
Better segregation of cyclists and pedestrians into their own spaces. The bell shouldn't be something that you use regularly.
Depending on how much traffic there is, combining them is fine.
Yes, but I would consider it somewhat rude to use the bell in a space where both bikes and pedestrians are allowed. If it would be required to be used regularly, I'd say the path is badly designed.
I used to commute to work by bike in ~1M city in Europe, mostly on dedicated bike lanes, but some shared, and had just the smallest, barely audible bell, only because it was required by law. I don't remember using it much at all. I don't know what the problem is. Maybe the Londoners should take a good look at themselves.
Different folks have different preferences.
I agree that on a footpath pedestrians should be treated as having priority.
A semi-common way I use my bell: when on a shared footpath with plenty of space to take over, I often use my bell when I'm still ten meters away, so that I don't give pedestrians are heart attack by suddenly dashing right past them.
(I have a nice ding dong bell. They don't seem to mind. It also helps that I often have a cheerful five year old in the back.)
But some bikers probably also use anc headphones, no?
Seen cyclists with overear anc headphones cycling on the road in london. Absolutely mad.
I do that. This was never a problem, as the ANC ones I used don't cancel every sound the same way.
For example, I can go into datacenter and it will cancel all the datacenter noise(aside for when air blows directly into mic, it overdrives it) but I can still hear what other person is saying.
Also I used them to generally listen to podcast so there was no wall of music to go thru, so sirens and such were easily discernable
You do you but as a cyclist you are super vulnerable to all manner of things and I'd never want to give up that kind of awareness.
If you listen carefully you can usually hear a cyclist behind you who may want to pass or is passing you, and having headphones probably makes that a lot harder
>I do that. This was never a problem
The most problematic people in traffic are never aware that they are the problem.
Do you also think drivers with windows blocking sounds and their stereo blasting are mad?
ofc they are
People shouldn't really be walking around in public with ANC on. It's not safe. Not a simple problem to solve except maybe to inform people better upon buying/setting up ANC-enabled devices.
or cyclists should have their own lanes, pedestrians shouldn't walk on them - and vice versa. and if you're stuck behind someone slow just overtake them when you can.
Safe or not - it is up to individual to decide if it is worth the risk.
Should people with hearing impairment also avoid walking around?
Nope. They get special treatment; and that's fine.
People with a hearing impairment are usually not impairing one of their senses with content competing for their attention
"Not a simple problem to solve" feels like a bit of an understatement.
The sense of entitlement of cyclists knows no bounds. If cars are liable for running over cyclists then cyclists must be liable for running over pedestrians.
I used to live in a city where I would walk everywhere but I had the constant fear of cyclists running over me because they would drive all over the pavements without any regard for pedestrians. Imagine walking and having to look around all the time. I find it amusing how people in websites like this one talk about how we have to be very afraid of cars when the true terror, at least for me, were cyclists.
And when you must walk with your small dog on a section of road where suddenly high speed e-cyclists zoom past you, now that's constant terror. At times you really get killer ideas.
Why are they walking around with ANC, you think? Maybe the sound of traffic (cars). They're also the ones posing the danger to cyclists and pedestrians. The solution is simple.
Fines. No one should cross roads/paths randomly, with or without headphones.
One large fine, and people will learn.
That would never work. Have you never been mindlessly walking and stepped on a bike way without realizing? Cities are for people after all. There's also so many places where bikes and pedestrians share the way, like roads under construction, and shared streets. We need to stop thinking of cities as these perfect automated places where humans are not welcome.
No, they won't, punishment is never better than good design that incentivises and directs how something ought to be used.
Jaywalking is even a misdemeanor in some areas of the USA, it doesn't stop it from happening at all.
Over-engineering? It's a fully mechanical bike bell that's made slightly differently. It's a very established and straightforward technology.
The presentation looks like marketing overkill, their solution looks pretty simple. It‘s just two trills „Trillerwerk“ bells combined. It was the standard in Germany until the late 1990s https://youtu.be/-mW7dWHDivo
That guy should lead with the sound check. :)
when the alternative is "everyone doing the right thing" this solution starts to look like the pragmatic approach
I completely disagree, this is just another level of safety.
If everything went perfectly everytime we wouldn't need any safety equipment, but things aren't always perfect.
The real problem is that cyclists and pedestrians apparently in some countries share space commonly enough that this is necessary?
In the Netherlands, bicycle utopia, I cannot remember the last time I used my bell to alert a pedestrian of my existence. Granted, I never cycle in Amsterdam, but that is a special location where high-powered ship horns are probably required.
Regarding ANC, I naturally turn it off while cycling on my Bose Quiet Comfort II, as the ANC will try (and fail) to cancel the noise from the wind. I don't think this is a solved problem? So for bicycle-to-bicycle alerting, this also seems overkill.
In Singapore, cyclists are generally expected to use the pavement and share it with pedestrians.
Which, seems to me, is the actual problem that should be solved.
I've thought about it before and I think part of it is that the average cyclist here moves a lot slower because of the temperature and humidity.
When I put even an ounce of effort into my cycle I become a sweaty mess which can be a little antisocial depending on the situation
I dislike the smug condescending tone of your comment. Not everyone lives in the "cycle utopia" Netherlands. For some of those that don't live there, this could be a game changer and life saver since its easier to buy a bell than wait for your city to build you segregated cycle lanes.
Personally, I see no use for this bell since in Austria bicycles share the road space with cars, trucks and trams rather than pedestrians, which could be more dangerous, and what I would need is a bicycle bell that could penetrate car enclosures so that drivers would get off their phones and pay attention to the stuff around them.
Yes, I know, ideally there should be dedicated cycle lanes only for bicycles but nothing in life is ever ideal, and the city isn't gonna do that anytime soon since that would mean completely eliminating car traffic on the narrow streets, witch would be political suicide, so a bell would be an instant life saver.
I don't mean to disagree that there are situations where this is useful. I'm just trying to offer the perspective from a situation where the root cause as I see it has been fixed (to a high degree).
The OP seemed to suggest that people wearing ANC headgear should stop doing so, but both the bell and the ANC-wearing pedestrians are a non-issue in my lived experience.
It would be a shame if these "cyclist-pedestrian ANC-wars" distract from the real issue, that cyclists are not, but should be, a fully emancipated participant in traffic and infrastructure should be designed with cars (to a degree), bicyclists AND pedestrians in mind.
> I'm just trying to offer the perspective from a situation where the root cause as I see it has been fixed (to a high degree).
Your argument was not a solution. You just said, "NL fixd this, why haven't other countries?" which doesn't add any value.
Have you considered that other cities/countries can't just add infrastructure that hasn't been designed from the start to accommodate bikes the same way NL has without taking space away from pedestrians or cars as the roads have stayed as narrow as back in the 1800s?
And that fixing it is not a switch you can just turn on on a whim, but requires decades of political and societal change around repurposing infrastructure, plus capital, before consensus is achieved? Democracies are complicated, even moreson in times like these.
What do you do until then, when a bell is an instant improvement?
You're commenting off the sidelines without realizing why most countries can't flip a switch and become NL overnight.
>It would be a shame if these "cyclist-pedestrian ANC-wars" distract from the real issue, that cyclists are not, but should be, a fully emancipated participant in traffic and infrastructure should be designed with cars (to a degree), bicyclists AND pedestrians in mind.
Yeah but what do you do if they are? There's no ANC wars here, Skoda just made a better bell. Are you also against the development of better bicycle helmets, because where you live you don't need them? Like yes sure, infrastructure is the real solution, but what do you do until that arrives?
I was not trying to offer a solution, as this will be highly specific to the situation in your locality and pretty pointless for me to spend time on. I am merely identifying this as a root cause, which for some reason strikes a nerve.
Why does Skoda, a car manufacturer, care so much about interactions between cyclists and pedestrians? As you say, a bell that penetrates the car enclosures would be much more useful. I suspect a similar reason why pro-safety helmet lobby groups in NL received a lot of funding from these same car manufacturers. I digress..
For your information, post-WWII infrastructure developments in NL were initially highly car-friendly. This only started to change in the 70s and 80s, when the government started to actually create bicycle-related traffic policy, after collective protests (e.g. popular pro-bicycle protest songs were written, children refused to go to schools unless bicycle paths were laid, etc.) also helped by the oil crisis of the time.
So, no it can't be fixed overnight, but it can be fixed in reasonable time (and not an unspecified amount of decades, political capital and funding). We are even living through a repeated history right now.
These things take both time and massive political will.
As somebody living in a city that's quite bike friendly, all things concerned, but still not close to Dutch or Danish levels of biking safety, I'll take any "technical solutions that try to solve social/political problems" I can get to make my commute safer.
Also, anything that makes biking feel safer will make more people try commuting by bike, which in turn increases the political will to change traffic laws and space use. Nothing exists in a vacuum.
Yes, company Škoda is from Czech Republic where we have shared-use paths for cyclists and pedestrians. It is not "necessary". You should not be wearing noise canceling headphones while being in traffic - it makes you more liable in case of accidents.
I don't know why, but sometimes this is done intentionally.
In my (Dutch) city, there is this infuriating piece of road where the bicycle path suddenly gets routed onto the kerb, intentionally mixing bikes and pedestrians. I believe the theory is that bikes will go slower so pedestrians don't need to worry about crossing the road as much or something.
Predictably, lots bikes are taken by surprise, either brake hard and suddenly or fly through pedestrians (who the biker thinks are in their bike lane, because they would be two meters earlier).
In my experience, when bikes and pedestrians meet, one of the two groups is in the wrong place and should be watching out/slowing down and waiting.
The example video shows various instances of pedestrians walking in bike lanes (and seemingly being surprised at the sudden appearance of a bike there). You can't fix stupid, but at least you can tell them to get off the bike path.
> In my (Dutch) city, there is this infuriating piece of road where the bicycle path suddenly gets routed onto the kerb, intentionally mixing bikes and pedestrians. I believe the theory is that bikes will go slower so pedestrians don't need to worry about crossing the road as much or something.
That is an unfortunate, probably experimental?, traffic design choice...
I wish my city only had a single case like that. Unfortunately, in Tallinn, it is extremely common that a bike path is suddenly routed onto the curb, and that's when you're lucky. For some paths, the path just... ends, and you suddenly find yourself right in the middle of car traffic. Unfortunately, the city leadership is anti-bike and pro-car, and it shows in the infrastructure.
Paths where pedestrians and bikers (and other light transportation vehicles) are mixed are overwhelmingly common.
If you know of a simple technical solution to transform the entire world into the Netherlands, I'm all ears!
https://translate.kagi.com/nl.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geschiedeni...
This could serve as the blueprint I guess, skip to the part about the 70s and 80s protests. Collective and popular protests helped by an oil crisis, recognizing vested interests in other modes of transportation (cars) that might want to work against your efforts.
> Collective and popular protests helped by an oil crisis
Sounds neither simple nor technical.
Nope, but now the worldwide geopolitical situation is such that it might at least be feasible?
Yes, but again, what's your problem with additionally taking steps to make things safer? Unless you somehow see technologies such as this distracting from creating a safer environment. But this was developed by Skoda, so I doubt that if they hadn't done this, they would have lobbied for more bike lanes instead.
I dont have issues with taking additional steps to make things safer, I have an issue with this solution serving as a vehicle for the marketing of the inevitability of the problem (of cyclists and pedestrians sharing space) by a car manufacturer obviously interested in this problem continuing to exist.
which part would you consider overengineered?
What's your easy technical solution to improve common sense, then? Or is it the all time classic of "just improving society"? I'm all ears for your ideas.
The problem is the cyclist trying to overtake pedestrian on sidewalk faster. The cyclist paying for it is correct person paying for it.
I say it as cyclist. Pedestrians have right to be absent minded in parks and on public sidewalks.
I have to agree here. The amount of cyclists I see with full over the ear headphones on-- if these guys are blarning tunes, there is no way they'll every hear the traffic around them. Extremely dangerous.
Seems to be some misunderstanding of what bike bells are for here...
A bell is helpful in a situation where a pedestrian is not aware of an approaching bike. The bell informs the pedestrian of two things:
1. That there is an approaching bike.
2. Roughly were the bike is approaching from.
The hope is that the pedestrian will then behave in a predictable way to allow a safe pass by the bike. In almost all cases the pedestrian will be able to simply continue doing what they were doing before they heard the bell.
If a pedestrian can not hear bike bells, for whatever reason, that is not a problem. They can just stay consistent with the centreline of the path/road/way. They then have a responsibility to shoulder check when shifting from side to side.
Draw a line, say this is for bicycles, pedestrians and cars have no business here, and bikes have no business being on any other lane as long as these exist.
When bikes have to go through areas where people walk freely, they need to limit their speed to a walking pace.
People should not wear headphones (noise-cancelling or not) when going through traffic as pedestrians. Take them off when crossing!
People should not hear loud music when driving - max is normal speaking voice level. Bike drivers should never hear any music, let alone wearing headphones. Behind-ear speakers on low could be a compromise.
Hey, we just solved 90% of the accidents.
If "shouldn't" worked we'd have no industrial accidents without any safety measures, no unwanted pregnancies and in general would more or less achieve heaven on Earth.
This only leaves open how to enforce all of it without everybody shouting domestic terror.
How do we enforce seatbelts? (1) Assume the public aren't stupid. (2) Assume the public aren't murderers. (3) Explain the risk-benefit analysis through informative videos like https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Julie_(1998_film).
People can shout "domestic terror" all they like, but if it's not true, it's not true.
You are answering different question. What you are saying is called awareness campaign or something. Enforcement of seatbelts is done by police with fines/tickets and is possible cause it's visible from outside.
Other things like loudness levels inside cars cannot be monitored without going in full totalitarian mode.
Why would enforcement be necessary, given assumptions 1 and 2 (not stupid, not murderers), and awareness? Around these parts, seatbelt enforcement isn't necessary because everyone voluntarily wears their seatbelt – except for children, occasionally, but the adults are generally capable of enforcing that. (Even teenagers / young adults being irresponsible in cars generally wear seatbelts while doing so.)
Wearing a seatbelt cost next to nothing in inconvenience. Not being able to listen to music or have phone calls with noise cancellation while walking does not really compare.
Of course this requires compensating for the loss in awareness through hearing by looking more diligently before crossing a bike lane, but unfortunately, some people never learn this, or only through a few close calls.
"Annoyingly" ringing a bell and converting a potential accident into a close call seems pretty close to optimal to me.
"Next to nothing in inconvenience" is the perception now. It certainly wasn't the perception when seatbelts were introduced. The ability to listen to personal music while walking is less than 50 years old: before that, you had the radio or nothing. Even that would not be an intolerable inconvenience for most. But I was more thinking:
> People should not hear loud music when driving - max is normal speaking voice level.
which feels like a more than acceptable constraint to me.
> People should not hear loud music when driving - max is normal speaking voice level.
Oh, completely agreed on that one. In a car, you are also by far better protected than any cyclists you might encounter, so you shouldn't make it harder to hear their signaling. (I still wouldn't rely on any car having heard my bell if I don't get any other confirmation that the driver has noticed me, e.g. sufficiently slowing down as they are approaching the intersection where I have right of way.)
But GGP also said
> People should not wear headphones (noise-cancelling or not) when going through traffic as pedestrians. Take them off when crossing!
and that's what I think goes too far. Why should I remove my headphones if I look both ways before crossing a bike lane or road?
The ideal rule would of course be that only those pedestrians remove their headphones that are otherwise inattentive... Although I have my doubts that they'd remember.
> Draw a line, say this is for bicycles, pedestrians and cars have no business here, and bikes have no business being on any other lane as long as these exist.
This is the reality in many cities, if it weren't for the hopefully not surprising fact that people don't always obey traffic laws perfectly.
Unfortunately, the UK seems almost incapable of building usable cycle infrastructure (possibly excepting London). Your idea is just a recipe for magic protective paint and even more abuse of cyclists who don't want to be forced to use ridiculously badly designed infrastructure. e.g. Here in Bristol, we have an infamous shared cycle/pedestrian pavement along Coronation Rd that has a few trees completely blocking the cycle side which just means conflict between pedestrians and cyclists who have to fight over the scraps left over from motorists taking most of the space (https://www.google.com/maps/@51.4462522,-2.6064792,3a,75y,80...).
Sorry I didn't write "don't have trees in the middle of the cycling lanes", I should have been more clear.
Also "don't let the restaurants cover the pavement with tables" follows the same logic.
Perhaps, planners should travel the route three times for every permitted mode of transportation, including walking, biking, and driving.
> Hey, we just solved 90% of the accidents.
No, you didn't. And restricting cyclists and pedestrians will not result in even small dent in the numbers of maimed or killed people in traffic. It's one mode of transport that's responsible for the vast amount of it, and that's the motorized one propelling several tonnes.
> and bikes have no business being on any other lane as long as these exist
And cars have no business being on other roads as long as highways exist ;)
I genuinely had a similar thought a few days ago while riding my motorbike; I had my AirPods on with noise cancelling, and I was like: I wish there was something that would alert me to horns/bells ... not that AirPods are super efficient at cancelling background noise but still!
Noise cancelling headphones while riding a motorbike is… a choice. Do you also wear a blindfold?
Next challange: Place a camera in front of the bike that scans approaching pedestrians. Calculate their head position and trajectory. Use directional speakers and focused sound beams to focus the ~780Hz sound towards the head(s) of the pedestrian(s). Now that you are not bothering the environment as much, you can increase the volume as well.
what
Sound beam aimed at person in the way.
Bell costs more than the bike is ok?
I would love that but not so much for pedestrians as for cars that don't see me on my bike. Ideally, the "bell" would automatically honk at them very loudly when they get too close.
I carry air horn and stick. But I am pedestrian.
I carry air horn. Great for dogs and aggressive cyclists. Pedestrians have no obligation to jump into ditch, to clear walking path for speeding cyclists!
In Germany we have rules, and one of those rules is that pedestrians on the sidewalk who are in the cyclepath (usually a too-subtle red stone) do, in fact, have to get out of the way for cyclists.
I imagine there's also a rule about directing airhorns against law abiding cyclists.
It's mildly interesting, but ultimately it's just a little greenwashing project. They even painted it green to make that clear :)
Video version which has more detail than the text: https://youtu.be/zDaVPfpQvPI?is=sSyjXf07r9cg9r4Y
Bit cringe marketing though.
I find the "Heard five seconds earlier, the difference between a serious collision and stepping aside" take hilarious. As if there is no other way to prevent a collision in five seconds other than the pedestrian getting out of the way.
As much as I get the urge to plow through pedestrians on bike paths (and stay proudly in the way of bikes on pedestrian paths), in real life, normal people don't do that kind of thing. Bikes have brakes for a reason.
But if you go at 40km/h the time goes down to one or two seconds!
Begun, the noise-cancelling wars have.
I need a noise canceller canceller canceller.
This bell would be illegal in Denmark, where our laws clearly state that you are only allowed one signal giving device and that any signal giving devices attached to vehicles (including bikes) can only produce one constant sound.
How this would be enforced is a different topic.
Really? I would have guessed you could argue that it qualifies as „one signal giving device“ since it is one single piece of equipment (ie the horn in a car also has many parts, but it‘s presumably fine) and also that it „only produces one constant sound“, where that sound is composed of different frequencies (again, car horns probably don‘t have a pure tone in Denmark either, right?).
Not entirely the same in Norway, but the rule as written is roughly translated "Sound signal: A bike should have a bell. Other signalling devices are prohibited".
Doesn't stop me from using an AirZound or digital airhorn. Saved me countless times. Like a bell is heard by a driver blasting their stereo while checking their phone, slowly veering into the cycle lane.
Non of those laws are enforced, ever. Even if you get stopped by police. When have you last seen a bike with all the mandetory reflectors?
Here's my hot take: just get rid of bicycle bells and horns altogether. When's the last time you heard one and were usefully informed about some behavioral change to avoid accident? How often does that happen as opposed to needless use of the bell/horn, or not noticing it for whatever reason (let's be charitable and exclude use of ANC headphones, but include general noise levels and boy-who-cried-wolf). How often is it just a jump scare, making traffic less safe?
Just ride/drive a bit more thoughtfully so you don't hurt people, even if they're deaf.
It is amazing they openly shared their findings [0], but one thing I am missing is what this design would cost if put into mass production. To the biggest layman possible, it reads like while the design is clever and would be more expensive by virtue of more materials/size alone, it's not impractical, but maybe someone more informed on this type of manufacturing can correct my ignorance. If that's the case, hopefully we'll see these designs on the market soon as even with music+ANC, I have found certain sounds to be able to easily penetrate through when listening, though that is purely subjective and I don't have my music earbleedingly loud...
[0] https://cdn.skoda-storyboard.com/2026/04/Skoda-DuoBell-Resea...
For a moment I thought this was an April fools joke product.
Pretty cool though!
Same here, surprised that only you mentioned it here.
This is one of those ideas that sounds a bit like marketing fluff at first, but the underlying problem is actually very real
Cool idea. But bizarre that they worked with Deliveroo. Bike bells were designed for a time when cyclists travelled at speeds where you could safely get out of the way.
Most "independent" cyclists do cycle safely.
But delivery riders for delivery platforms commonly use illegally modified e-bikes. Platforms have the GPS data. They must know.
They could make huge improvements in safety by actively preventing the use of illegally modified e-bikes that travel too fast.
>They could make huge improvements in safety by actively preventing the use of illegally modified e-bikes that travel too fast.
Or by regulating bicycle food delivery services so thatheir employees' continued employment and wage magnitude doesn't hinge quite so thoroughly on how rapidly they deliver.
I have noticed I can make a less sharp sound with my bike bell by ringing it a certain way. I use this to let pedestrians know I am coming but that they don't have to jump out of the way.
Fun fact: Škoda means "pity" or "damage" in Czech, can also be used as "what a shame".
Happened to be the company founder's surname.
it is quote common family name in Czechia, my daughter's classmate has this family name as well
same with most of the Japanese car brands or even Citroen, Peugeot...
But Citroen and Peugeot don't mean something funny like "What a shame"
That can’t be aero.
On a serious note there’s a marketing problem in my view: who out there who chooses to buy a bell even considers that their might be a loudness problem? It’s not immediately obvious that I need this and I’m sure there’s a premium price attached.
I bought a nice ding dong bell for my bike, and pedestrians seem to notice it a lot more than the nastier sounding bells.
This is amazing. Would be great if emergency vehicle sirens could also adopt these findings. I feel like they're beyond painfully loud these days.
Reminds me of old Reich bells http://reich-cycle-bells.de and their „Trillerwerk“ (trill sound)
I believe devices intended to block necessary external environmental sounds should be prohibited while driving, including cycling.
Remember that a horn is a safety feature.
It is of course prohibited in many jurisdictions. it's just not enforceable.
This is more aimed to warn pedestrians who wear ANC headphones. Should people be prohibited from wearing headphones while walking?
In effect they are, even if not directly. There are requirements to stay aware of your surroundings. If you cause an accident by blocking all sounds, I totally can see insurance companies claiming this is your own responsibility and refusing to cover.
It's not about the cyclists wearing ANC headsets (which is already prohibited at least in Euro countries), but about pedestrians wearing them. Another problem altogether.
It is pedestrian who are wearing the ANC to remove the noise outside.
> Its a simple analog solution to a digital problem
That's such a beautiful statement
i’m on airpods pro 3, and it’s far from producing noise-cancellation so powerful as to require such measures. perhaps if I’m listening to heavy music at ear-damaging levels. maybe my hearing is too sensitive.
So it's tuned to a specific frequency at 780Hz? And that defeats all/most ANC?
That's the interesting bit. Is this a known / agreed upon feature of ANC headphones or just a property of a specific iteration of let's say airpods?
Is it available for sale?
Intentionally deaf people hate this one trick.
So where can I buy this thing?
People don't tend to wear anc headsets when walking the Forrest.
Maybe the issue is the noise in the cities?
Some people wear them there.
As perfectly captured in "don't _tend_ to ..."
There’s more than one issue. It’s not wrong to try to solve one of them.
The problem with headphones is not noise cancellation. It’s the fact they play music.
My regular Widek bell penetrates ANC, but when there’s music, ANC or not, it’s hard to hear. I’m struggling to believe the claims this bell is going to be significantly better.
If this bell gets through ANC then yes it will help people with ANC. It's not an all or nothing situation, you hear it further away for each increase in loudness.
Also, ANC let's you reduce your music volume for the same signal to noise ratio.
Every single person that stops and looks due to this is a win in my book.
750 Hz. Baby crying sound is around 300-400 Hz and let me tell you my airpods pro definitely let me hear the baby cry. I think Apple built that as an obvious safety feature.
Interestingly, all the shrillness noises (chalkboard, balloon or polystyrene screech) are in similar frequency too.
Where can I buy this??
Pretty cool if true!
Oh great, cyclist gonna annoy me even in headphones
nice but it wont help with isolating earbuds
I've noticed some trains are playing extremely loud announcements (Elizabeth line for example) which makes me think they're trying to penetrate headphones and earphones
Guess why I wear noise cancelling headphones on trains? Because of the excessive announcements!
(I mean seriously excessive. Because in the UK the answer to everything is to create another announcement or poster)
We need to stop the arms race
How about cyclists stop cycling on sidewalks?
not all of them do
What if they are shared?
A lot of footpaths in Europe are designated paths that are shared with cyclists
Well, sure, as soon as infrastructure exists so the alternative isn't "get run over by a homicidal driver". And actual infrastructure, not painted lines that typically get filled up with double-parking cars.
I don't know where you're from, but in Germany for example, there are countless situations where cyclists and pedestrians share the same space, or pedestrians can (or just do…) cross bicycle lanes. I'm a very law-abiding cyclist since witnessing a few horrible accidents, and yet I encounter situations with headphone-wearing pedestrians regularly. Often I'll ring my bell to no avail, until driving right up to them, and they still won't hear me. This is really frustrating; I'm definitely in the market for this.
I am aware that most countries do not have dedicated roads for cyclists, but that doesn't mean that cyclists should be using sidewalks. When I go out and walk on the sidewalk, I expect to be able to just walk safely without having to think about potential riders of bicycles or other things that people ride on sidewalks.
> I am aware that most countries do not have dedicated roads for cyclists, but that doesn't mean that cyclists should be using sidewalks.
Huh? Germany has signs on same shared pavements that tell you that by law your bike needs to be on there, not on the road.
Are you suggesting people break the law over your preferences?
Then it's a stupid law. But from the image that other commenter gave, it does look like Germany has space that is clearly intended for cyclists, and I have no issue with that. I have issue with instances when people cycle on sidewalks intended for pedestrians.
It's not always as clearly demarcated as on that picture; sometimes there's just a sign.
I would also argue that a reasonably broad way for pedestrians and bicyclists can be shared without any issue, if both parties pay some modicum of attention to their surroundings and treat each other with mutual respect: Pedestrians by keeping to the right side of the path, and cyclists by slowing down when overtaking and ringing the bell to let people know they are approaching.
Also: kids under a certain age are generally required to cycle on the footpath. They need bells, too.
No he meant this: https://www.fahrradstadt-braunschweig.de/wp-content/uploads/...
Left side is for bicycles. Right side for pedestrians. It is a dedicated lane but a shared space.
> I'm a very law-abiding cyclist since witnessing a few horrible accidents, and yet I encounter situations with headphone-wearing pedestrians regularly. Often I'll ring my bell to no avail, until driving right up to them, and they still won't hear me. This is really frustrating; I'm definitely in the market for this.
I’m guessing some law (law-abiding) gives you the right to bother people who are using their own feet instead of wheels because you want to pass them and they should have to actively watch out for you and yield to you? Okay, that part is fine. But I don’t see how it is nice or, I dunno, ethical.
In my experience (in my locale) as a cyclist you either give pedestrians a wide enough berth, dismount so that you can pass them if it is crowded and there is no passage, or use the vehicular road.
I remember violating this one time when I belled someone that I wanted to pass on the sidewalk. But I was a child at the time. Even more self-centered than I am now.
These seeming rules for yielding to cyclists are worse than the laws and norms when cars interact with bicycles, by the way. At least where I am: cars never honk cyclists. They have to wait for them or find a window to pass them safely. They can’t honk them into the ditch or something.
> I’m guessing some law (law-abiding) gives you the right to bother people who are using their own feet instead of wheels because you want to pass them and they should have to actively watch out for you and yield to you? Okay, that part is fine. But I don’t see how it is nice or, I dunno, ethical.
No. There are just people who will walk on a designated bicycle lane because they haven't seen the signage, are ignorant or careless about it, or will just cross it to get somewhere else. All while wearing ANC headphones. This isn't about bothering someone, but warning them. It's really no different from someone jaywalking without seeing you, and honking to make them aware of that. Or are you supposing you'd just break and wait until they're finished crossing the street?
I totally agree in the context of bicycle lanes.
Sorry. Apparently I didn’t read your comment carefully enough.
If just slowing down helps to prevent an accident, not sure what the bell would be good for - except for signaling your frustration to everyone around you
e.g.: In Amsterdam you cross biking lanes to cross the roads sometimes, or bike lanes and sidewalks are so integrated, you can wander into them without noticing.
Being tired in a crowded street in rainy weather doesn't help either.
I think I’d prefer AI slop comments to comments like this.
Agreed. Make bike paths and people cycle on bike paths. Crazy stuff I know!
Edit 2: I originally didn’t think of the case when you want to warn pedestrians that you are passing (without asking them to give way) in case they decide to switch direction without looking if there is any incoming entities. That seems legitimate to me. Although giving a wide enough berth might be better than doing it routinely (that could amount to a lot of noise eventually).
Edit: Since people seem to go either way: It is my understanding that in my part of the world (in Scandinavia) cyclists do not have the right of way on sidewalks (which means they can’t bell people away). They also (and I know this one) do not have the right of way while cycling across road crossings. Something that most cyclists, in my experience, violate all the time.
Quite. It drives me up the wall when cyclists not only use the sidewalk close enough to me to practically graze me (pedestrian), but expect me to actively pay attention and yield to them. Use the road, dummy (there are scarce few bicycle lanes).
I use regular headphones (not over-ear and not really noise canc.) on the sidewalk but take them off when I am crossing the street. And I of course am mindful of other pedestrians. But I’m not gonna take them off because some two-wheeler thinks they can ram into me unless I jump out of the way on the sidewalk.
At least here in Austria, I honestly rarely, if ever, see them do that. Either roads or dedicated/mixed designated cycle paths. We do have enforcement even against cyclists, though more than anything, that catches all the "unlocked" e-bikes, because cycling on the sidewalks is not a thing anyone does.
Even with bikes being off the sidewalk, there is need for a quick way of getting others pedestrians attention.
This is always an odd one, as it’s the people who look like they just found a bike in a skip and decided to ride around here that cycle on the pavements.
As a cyclist in London, I’ve hit one pedestrian: they stepped backward(!) into a cycle lane. I had nowhere to go, as there was a curb on the other side. Pedestrian behaviour is just totally wild with respect to cycle lanes, a lot of them are just totally oblivious. If you cycle, you will come across people walking along or stepping into dedicated cycle lanes several times during the average commute.
I'm often a pedestrian and I've been known to walk into the road where there are bikes and cars also.
this was not really an issue before food delivery apps came into fashion
btw. kids up until certain age can pretty much in all countries ride bike legally on sidewalk, are there any countries where 8yo can't ride bike on sidewalk?
I always hate having my headphones on ANC on the street. It makes me feel really exposed and disconnected. I tend to use transparency when out and about.
> In real-world trials conducted on the streets of London in February, in cooperation with Deliveroo couriers, the bell proved so effective that couriers expressed a desire to keep it.
Of course they would, because a lot of them either don’t have any bell, or have a shitty ping-ping bell that doesn’t produce good sound.
Or could sell it on eBay for an amount of money that's nontrivial from POV of a gig economy worker.
Living in a city you cannot stand so much that you wear noise cancelling headphones at all times. Commuting to work that you hate and manoeuvring between zombies looking at their phones, wearing noise cancelling headphones, and occasional cars recklessly opening doors or joining the traffic without looking in the mirrors. You even forgot the original goal of saving money because the rent eats 50% of the net salary and work eats every will to live. Here it is - the fruit of your glorious education and mean by which your mortgage is paid is bicycle bell. Thanks for reminding me to stay away from this miserable mess.
Just when you thought interacting with cyclists couldn't get any more annoying... introducing the Škoda DuoBell! New from Mattel!
A reminder that a gun [0] would also work as a bicycle bell that works despite noise-cancelling headphones.
[0] https://xkcd.com/1217/
I’m more afraid of cyclists than of cars. I know exactly where the road starts and end, I know there are traffic lights drivers and pedestrians usually respect, so it’s very unlikely that I can get hit by a car. And Im talking about myself, not about the average person (I know stats may say otherwise)
But cyclists can ride in the pedestrian lane, bike lanes and pedestrians lanes are not easily distinguishable (if you are visiting a new city/country for example, and/or the painting of the lanes disappear over time) compared to roads, you typically can hear cars/motorbikes coming (though with electric cars that’s less common) while bikes are very silent, and last but not least, typically there is certain hierarchy when it comes to cars and pedestrians (at least in Europe): pedestrians come first. That’s not the case with bikes (which based on my experience, they share the same level of importance with pedestrians in the streets)
More or less at the time when electric bicycles weighing over 20kg and moving over 30kmh started to drive on sidewalks, I started to avoid living in big cities.