Audible Warning When Riding

[Peter Clinch]

POHB wrote:

> Audible warnings can help you make faster progress by getting peds to notice
> you, but I don't think they can ever be relied upon to prevent an accident.
> You have to assume it'll be ignored. If a ped, car or whatever suddenly
> jumps in front of you then hit the brakes not the bell.

Recently I was progressing at Some Speed down a reasonably sharp hill in
Dundee. A couple of Peds stepped off the pavement without looking up.
Braking alone would not have stopped me in time, but as it turned out
the *OI!* I uttered caused them to stop and then step back rather than
to proceed into my path. Shouting did far more to stop an accident than
my brakes on that occasion.

Pete.
--
Peter Clinch Medical Physics IT Officer
Tel 44 1382 660111 ext. 33637 Univ. of Dundee, Ninewells Hospital
Fax 44 1382 640177 Dundee DD1 9SY Scotland UK
net [email protected] http://www.dundee.ac.uk/~pjclinch/

 

[Simon Brooke]

in message <[email protected]>, Ric
('[email protected]') wrote:

>
> "Simon Brooke" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>> in message <[email protected]>, Ric
>> ('[email protected]') wrote:
>>
>>> Ride on the pavement then all you need is a bell.
>>
>> I know this is supposed to be 'clever' and 'a joke' but let's be clear
>> about this: riding on the pavement is both illegal and dangerous.
>>
> Not dangerous and not illegal in France. Far safer on the pavement!
> Even police ride their bikes on the pavement here!

No, about twice as dangerous. Unless, of course, there are no junctions.

See <URL:http://www.bicyclinglife.com/Library/riskfactors.htm>,
especially table 5.

--
[email protected] (Simon Brooke) http://www.jasmine.org.uk/~simon/

Error 1109: There is no message for this error

 

[[email protected]]

Tony Raven wrote:


> And not only more dangerous, but significantly more dangerous.

Yes but having said that statistics are an average. I sometimes use a
stretch of pavenment to avoid 1/2 mile of 50 mph dual carriageway
depending on weather and traffic. The stretch concerned has with only
one gap where peds can leave the adjacent science park. There are no
other buildings accessed from it. On average I meet 2 peds during that
1/2 mile. I'm quite happy I'm safer on the pavement on that stretch as
I elimate the chance (albeit tiny) of being rear ended by a drunk
driver on Friday and Saturday nights when I use it.
Oh and the council have made it legal by putting mixed use
signs on the lamp posts.

Iain

 

[Tony Raven]

[email protected] wrote:
> Tony Raven wrote:
>
>
>> And not only more dangerous, but significantly more dangerous.
>
> Yes but having said that statistics are an average. I sometimes use a
> stretch of pavenment to avoid 1/2 mile of 50 mph dual carriageway
> depending on weather and traffic. The stretch concerned has with only
> one gap where peds can leave the adjacent science park. There are no
> other buildings accessed from it. On average I meet 2 peds during that
> 1/2 mile. I'm quite happy I'm safer on the pavement on that stretch as
> I elimate the chance (albeit tiny) of being rear ended by a drunk
> driver on Friday and Saturday nights when I use it.
>

Except your 50mph dual carriageway is also much safer than a normal road
because it too doesn't have junctions. Being rear-ended is an extremely
rare accident on the roads even though it is the one that seems to be
uppermost in most peoples perception of the risk of cycling. The real
risk to cyclists is at junctions not straight junction and drive-less roads.

--
Tony

"The best way I know of to win an argument is to start by being in the
right."
- Lord Hailsham

 

[Mark Thompson]

> No, about twice as dangerous. Unless, of course, there are no junctions.
>
> See <URL:http://www.bicyclinglife.com/Library/riskfactors.htm>,
> especially table 5.

I think we should be calling it 'less safe' rather than 'more dangerous'.

 

[Tony]

On 30 Jan 2006 12:18:19 -0800, [email protected] wrote:

>The old rotating bells are no good these days with drivers' music so
>loud. Does anyone know of a good alarm of some kind against pedestrians
>and motorists? A whistle is cheap and loud but I dont fancy riding with
>it in my teeth all the time. Some motorcyclists used to attach aerosol
>driven horns which must be quite light but may need a large battery.
>What does everyone else use to secure life and limb?
>
>upthekerbagain

May sound daft, but I carry a hunter's duck call - if sufficisnt time
to deploy it, a rapid reaction is guaranteed ! Also useful for getting
through crowded shopping mauls (sic) or arcades - the human race seem
to have an inbuilt fear of being run down from behind by a duck.

(May also induce heart attack in affluent elderly relatives - not
checked that yet !)

HTH

Tony

 

[Simon Brooke]

in message <[email protected]>, Mark
Thompson ('[email protected]') wrote:

>> No, about twice as dangerous. Unless, of course, there are no
>> junctions.
>>
>> See <URL:http://www.bicyclinglife.com/Library/riskfactors.htm>,
>> especially table 5.
>
> I think we should be calling it 'less safe' rather than 'more
> dangerous'.

Good point; I stand corrected.

--
[email protected] (Simon Brooke) http://www.jasmine.org.uk/~simon/
Copyright (c) Simon Brooke; All rights reserved. Permission is
granted to transfer this message via UUCP or NNTP and to store it
for the purpose of archiving or further transfer. Permission is
explicitly denied to use this message as part of a 'Web Forum', or
to transfer it by HTTP.

 

[Danny Colyer]

POHB wrote:
> Audible warnings can help you make faster progress by getting peds to notice
> you, but I don't think they can ever be relied upon to prevent an accident.
> You have to assume it'll be ignored. If a ped, car or whatever suddenly
> jumps in front of you then hit the brakes not the bell.

Better still is to have an AirZound set up so that you can hit the
button at the same time as performing an emergency stop. On my Street
Machine I am able to sound the horn with the heel of my left hand as I
slam on the front brake with my right.

--
Danny Colyer <URL:http://www.colyer.plus.com/danny/>
Subscribe to PlusNet <URL:http://www.colyer.plus.com/referral/>
"He who dares not offend cannot be honest." - Thomas Paine

 

[Ric]

"Richard" <[email protected]>
wrote in message news:[email protected]...
> Ric wrote:
>> There are lots of other circumstances where it is safer to ride
>> on the pavement. The generalised claim that riding on the pavement is
>> "dangerous" is pompous blather.
>
> ...backed up by the statistics, however, which show that it /is/ more
> dangerous.

Let's see these statistics then. As Homer Simpson once said, people can come
up with statistics to prove anything - 14% of people know that.

 

[Ric]

> See <URL:http://www.bicyclinglife.com/Library/riskfactors.htm>,
> especially table 5.
>
These stats are for the USA where most junctions are traffic-light
controlled with pavements alongside. Obviously if you ride along the
pavement straight into the traffic because you didn't see the lights, then
you are at risk. This does not prove that "it is more dangerous to ride on
the pavement than on the road". There are many situations in European
traffic where it is much safer to ride on the pavement - for example the one
I gave. Incidentally, I rode along the mentioned road this morning on my way
to work and as I was on my road bike on which I can easily keep up with
traffic speed, I rode on the road. But tomorrow I will probably go on my
Brompton - and I will ride on the deserted pavement alongside as my speed
will be lower.

Making a generalisation from these stats that it is "dangerous" to ride on
the pavement is pompous and ridiculous.

 

[Tony Raven]

Ric wrote:
>
> Let's see these statistics then. As Homer Simpson once said, people can come
> up with statistics to prove anything - 14% of people know that.
>

Lund University Study:
At junctions cycle tracks 3.4 times more dangerous than using road, but
rising to 11.9 riding in 'wrong' direction. Cycle lane 1.1 times more
dangerous than unsegregated road for going ahead. Left turns
particularly dangerous from cycle track (11.0), less so from cycle lane
(3.4).

Berlin Police Study
Cyclists 4 times more likely to have accident on roads with cycle paths.
Likelihood of serious or fatal injury similarly increased.

Denmark
Before and after study of 105 new cycle paths in Denmark, introduced
totalling 64km. Cyclist casualties increased 48% following introduction
of paths

Finnish study of Nordic Countries
Overall risk of collision is 0.5 crashes/100,000km on the carriageway
but 1.3 crashes/100,000km on a cycle track

UK TRL Study
No evidence that cycle routes lead to more cycling or improved safety

German Federal Highway Institute
Without signals, cyclists nearly 5 times more at risk on a cycle track.
With signals cyclists 1.7 to 2.7 times more at risk on cycle track, 1.3
times on a cycle lane. At roundabouts cycle tracks increase risk by 30%,
cycle lanes by 25%.

US Study
Sidewalk risk on average 1.8 times as great as road, but much greater
for wrong-way sidewalk bicyclists

US Transportation Research Board
Facility relative danger index. Major road 0.66, Minor road 0.94,
Recreational multi-use trail 1.39, footway 16.34.

Milton Keynes
Injury accidents per million km cycled: main roads 31, local roads 149,
cycle paths 166

Helsinki
Using a road-side cycle path is nearly 2.5 times more likely to result
in injury than cycling on the carriageway with traffic. At junctions the
relative risk rises to more than 3 times.

There are virtually no statistics showing either equal or less risk on
cyclepaths.

--
Tony

"The best way I know of to win an argument is to start by being in the
right."
- Lord Hailsham

 

[Mark Thompson]

> Making a generalisation from these stats that it is "dangerous" to
> ride on the pavement is pompous and ridiculous.

"In general, less safe." How's that then?

 

[LSMike]

Ric wrote:
>
> Making a generalisation from these stats that it is "dangerous" to ride on
> the pavement is pompous and ridiculous.

IMO your point of view has received a sound thrashing from the evidence.

 

[Richard]

Ric wrote:

>>> There are lots of other circumstances where it is safer to ride
>>>on the pavement. The generalised claim that riding on the pavement is
>>>"dangerous" is pompous blather.
>>
>>...backed up by the statistics, however, which show that it /is/ more
>>dangerous.
>
>
> Let's see these statistics then.

http://www.lesberries.co.uk/cycling/infra/research.html

 

[Simon Brooke]

in message <[email protected]>, Ric
('[email protected]') wrote:

>
> "Richard"
> <[email protected]> wrote in
> message news:[email protected]...
>> Ric wrote:
>>> There are lots of other circumstances where it is safer to ride
>>> on the pavement. The generalised claim that riding on the pavement is
>>> "dangerous" is pompous blather.
>>
>> ...backed up by the statistics, however, which show that it /is/ more
>> dangerous.
>
> Let's see these statistics then. As Homer Simpson once said, people can
> come up with statistics to prove anything - 14% of people know that.

I quoted them before. But to repeat myself,
<URL:http://www.bicyclinglife.com/Library/riskfactors.htm> (see table 5)

<URL:http://www.toronto.ca/transportation/publications/bicycle_motor-vehicle/>
is also useful.

--
[email protected] (Simon Brooke) http://www.jasmine.org.uk/~simon/

'there are no solutions, only precipitates'

 

[Simon Brooke]

in message <[email protected]>, Ric
('[email protected]') wrote:

>> See <URL:http://www.bicyclinglife.com/Library/riskfactors.htm>,
>> especially table 5.
>>
> These stats are for the USA where most junctions are traffic-light
> controlled with pavements alongside. Obviously if you ride along the
> pavement straight into the traffic because you didn't see the lights,
> then you are at risk. This does not prove that "it is more dangerous to
> ride on the pavement than on the road". There are many situations in
> European traffic where it is much safer to ride on the pavement - for
> example the one I gave.

No, sorry, there really aren't. The example I gave was American (largely
because it's in English and on the Web), but similar results have been
produced by studies in Germany, Sweden, Denmark, the Netherlands...
Riding on the pavement just is measurably less safe, principally because
at junctions you are emerging where traffic does not expect you. On very
long stretches of pavement with no junctions, you /may/ be marginally
safer on the pavement, but no research has ever demonstrated that.

--
[email protected] (Simon Brooke) http://www.jasmine.org.uk/~simon/

;; Women are from Venus. Men are from Mars. Lusers are from Uranus.

 

[squeaker]

Personally a 'ping' can help, especially on mixed use paths, and with
these at http://www.manybells.com/en/ available, how can you not have
one on your bike

 

[Tony Raven]

squeaker wrote:
> Personally a 'ping' can help, especially on mixed use paths, and with
> these at http://www.manybells.com/en/ available, how can you not have
> one on your bike
>

My daughters bought me the eyeball one many years ago for my mountain
bike "so you remember we are keeping an eye on you and so you will know
when you are upside down"

--
Tony

"The best way I know of to win an argument is to start by being in the
right."
- Lord Hailsham

 

[chris harrison]

Peter Clinch wrote:
> Also my experience. In places where you're mixing with peds a bell is
> generally considered polite by them, and it's a lot easier to sound a
> bell than say "excuse me!" 23 times.

Strangely, when I'm a ped rather than a cyclist and I'm on a mixed use
path (the footpath beside the river quite near my home, for example), it
irks me to hear the tinkle of a bell rather than a spoken 'excuse me'.

I think I feel that the bell is trying to reduce social interaction,
perhaps even being ashamed to speak up to ask for what you want and
using a tool instead - I would say 'excuse me' in the same situation.
Similar to sending an email rather than telephoning someone, for example.

I'll grant you though that a tinkle is more pleasant to receive than the
more normal, abrupt "oi" or "coming through" or less polite 'requests'.

 

[David Martin]

Marz wrote:
> I'll admit I'm more of a 'weaver' than a notify'er when it
> comes to riding through masses of peds, which is a very rare occasion.
> After you've said excuse me 30 times the temptation to just yell
> 'BOMB' is too much.

I relax, accept that due to the weight of traffic I will have to slow
down to that speed unless safe to overtake (noticing the number of
unrestrained toddlers legitimately using the road) and treat it as a
balancing excercise. It is only for a hundred yards or so, and you are
rarely held at walking pace for more than a few metres. I don't use the
bell, why should I expect everyone else to get out of my way?

...d