news.bbc.co.uk3667513.stmOpen ↗
Comments:
- the original bike bell law was repealed because it was
unworkable; the replacement is at least practical
- riding on the pavement is already an offence; what makes
them think that people who do this would respect a law
requiring them to have a bell, if there were one?
- "there need to be cyclepaths" - wrong! Most pavement
cyclists should simply be on the road.
- figures for fatalities: these are new, I've not seen them
before at all. Since the figure for fatalities on the
footway is known to be small, it is quite possible that
these were peds who stepped out into the road, but I'll be
trying to find out the truth.
Guy
Welcome back, bicycle bell
Ah...the ding of a bicycle bell as a cheery postman greets
the vicar across the village green. Something from a
bygone era? Not quite - it's the new initiative to improve
road safety.
If you've get a brand new bicycle from 1 May, make sure its
got a brand new bell.
Bells on new bikes were compulsory until 1983, when the
requirement was scrapped by Mrs Thatcher's government. But
from this weekend they will once again be mandatory.
But worried walkers fear that although the Pedal Bicycle
Safety Regulations Act makes it an offence to sell a bell-
less bike, there's nothing to stop the new owner removing it
as soon as they wheel their new purchase out of the shop.
Karen Blanchette, of the Royal Society for the Prevention of
Accidents, says this is a mistake, as bells act as an
effective warning to pedestrians, who might otherwise step
out in front of an on-coming cyclist.
Nick Palmer, the Labour MP for Broxtowe, agrees. He has
campaigned for compulsory bells for five years, after
several thousand of his constituents signed a petition in
favour of such a Bill.
Mainly pensioners and partially-sighted people, they
complained that they felt at risk from cyclists who rode on
pavements or sped past just as they stepped off the pavement
to cross the road.
"Local police have told me it is very difficult to stop
cyclists whizzing by," Mr Palmer says. "Wherever possible,
there needs to be cycle paths, but you will still get those
who will ride on the pavements."
If they used bells to warn of their presence, it might just
make the pavements a safer place, he says.
In 2002, 170 pedestrians collided with a cyclist - three of
those died, and 40 sustained serious injuries, according to
the Royal Society.
Roger Geffen, of the Cyclists Touring Club, the national
body which represents cyclists' interests, says bells are a
good idea especially for novice riders. "We feel [the Act]
is appropriate given that so many new bikes are bought by
people, including children, who are new to cycling and who
are therefore likely to share the space with pedestrians."
But it's not only walkers at risk. Cyclists themselves can
be injured in collisions with pedestrians and other road -
or pavement - users. In parts of Canada, bell-less cyclists
can be pulled over by the police and fined up to $100 -
about £40. One rider familiar with the traffic-clogged roads
of Toronto says she thought the law was an ass - until she
took to two wheels herself.
"I found I used the bell all the time. I rang the damn thing
like a maniac, and I think it saved me more than once."
--
Guy
===
May contain traces of irony. Contents liable to settle after
posting. chapmancentral.co.ukchapmancentral.co.ukOpen ↗
Victory is ours! Down with Eric the Half A Brain!