Bells to be made compulsory? "Scotland on Sunday" want your opinion.

[Alistair Gunn]

Alan Holmes twisted the electrons to say:
> "dkahn400" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
> > Tony Raven wrote:
> >> As for pedestrians on shared use paths the problem is minor.
> > If shared use paths are perceived as a problem for pedestrians I have a
> > much better solution than making cyclists fit a bell. Simply ban shared
> > use paths where they run alongside a road. If that's too radical for
> > the powers that be, ban bicycles from shared use paths unless they are
> > fitted with a bell. Problem solved.
> What about the pedestrians who are deaf, and there are qite a lot of those?

Knowing what UK governments tend to be like, I suspect the "solution"
(and I use the word in it's vaguest possible sense!) will be to ban deaf
people - afterall, they clearly "have no place in a decent and civilised
society" and "think of the children" ... etc etc ... <grins>
--
These opinions might not even be mine ...
Let alone connected with my employer ...

 

[dkahn400]

Alan Holmes wrote:

> What about the pedestrians who are deaf, and there are qite a lot of those?

Eh?

--
Dave...

 

[Phil Cook]

dkahn400 wrote:

>Alan Holmes wrote:
>
>> What about the pedestrians who are deaf, and there are qite a lot of those?
>
>Eh?

Pardon? I didn't quite catch that
--
Phil Cook looking north over the park to the "Westminster Gasworks"

 

[P]

Alan Holmes wrote:
> What about the pedestrians who are deaf, and there are qite a lot of
> those?

Restrict cycling to 4mph, and have a chap with a red flag precede each
cyclist. Deaf people will then be able to receive a gentle tap on the
shoulder to indicate a cyclist wishing to overtake. The red flag carrier
will, of course, be in receipt of a government sponsored identity card so
that deaf people will know that they are accompanying a *real* cyclist
wishing to pass, and that they are not just very polite muggers with a red
flag.

Pete.

 

[Tony Raven]

Alan Holmes wrote on 18/08/2006 23:03 +0100:
>
> What about the pedestrians who are deaf, and there are qite a lot of those?
>

You need that Not the Nine O'Clock News/Rowan Atkinson gadget for
telling deaf people when the phone was ringing but adapted for bicycle
bells. Hello?.....Hello?...... ;-)

--
Tony

"Anyone who conducts an argument by appealing to authority is not using
his intelligence; he is just using his memory."
- Leonardo da Vinci

 

[DavidR]

"the.Mark" <[email protected]> wrote
>
> Will the use of a horn such as an Air Zound be allowed instead.

Only in addition to the BS approved bell... which will weigh 2lbs, be
inaudible more than 6ft from the bicycle, rapidly shake loose and stop
working after the first bit of damp weather.

 

[Andrew Templeman]

Alan Holmes <[email protected]> wrote:

> "dkahn400" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
> > Tony Raven wrote:
> >
> >> As for pedestrians on shared use paths the problem is minor.
> >
> > If shared use paths are perceived as a problem for pedestrians I have a
> > much better solution than making cyclists fit a bell. Simply ban shared
> > use paths where they run alongside a road. If that's too radical for
> > the powers that be, ban bicycles from shared use paths unless they are
> > fitted with a bell. Problem solved.
>
> What about the pedestrians who are deaf, and there are qite a lot of those?
>

If they're not deaf, most of them tend to be using an iPod type device
or mobile phone, which renders them effectively deaf.

--
Andy Templeman <http://www.templeman.org.uk/>

 

[Tony Raven]

Andrew Templeman wrote on 20/08/2006 08:27 +0100:
>
> If they're not deaf, most of them tend to be using an iPod type device
> or mobile phone, which renders them effectively deaf.
>

Like the one in London who stepped off the pavement looking the wrong
way in front of me. When I rang my bell he looked puzzled at his phone
to see who was calling.

--
Tony

"Anyone who conducts an argument by appealing to authority is not using
his intelligence; he is just using his memory."
- Leonardo da Vinci

 

[Tony W]

>> >
>> > If shared use paths are perceived as a problem for pedestrians I have a
>> > much better solution than making cyclists fit a bell. Simply ban shared
>> > use paths where they run alongside a road. If that's too radical for
>> > the powers that be, ban bicycles from shared use paths unless they are
>> > fitted with a bell. Problem solved.

Sorry to quote from so far back but ....

Hey! Great idea. What if we also made lights compulsory at night? All
cyclists (well, people on bikes) would instantly fit and use lights. No
more complaints about not being able to see them.

We could also ban cycling through red traffic lights -- and change behaviour
instantly.

Then -- if it worked with cyclists we could try restricting the speed of
cars to, say, 30 mph in towns and 70 mph on motorways -- and insist that
motorist do not use their phones while driving.

This could really work -- assuming people obey the law!

T



May contain traces of cynicism!

 

[Sue White]

Alan Holmes <[email protected]> whizzed past me shouting
>
>>
>> Cyclists that do regularly use cycle paths may find a bell useful.
>> Cyclists who generally stick to the road it will be a hinderance taking
>> up space that is useful to mount lights. (My lighting system doesn't
>> leave room to mount a bell). The bell is next to useless for a road
>> cyclist.
>>
>> One's own voice box does the well enough and it's much more
>> informative.
>
>All I have to do is to apply my brakes, they make a really high pitched
>screech!
>

My bell's useless in Reading even on cycleways, as it's such a noisy
environment that peds don't hear it, although it sounds loud enough in a
quiet area.
IMO a street bike ought to rattle, so that pedestrians on shared-use
paths can hear it coming. The squeal of brakes sounds too panicky, peds
don't know it's loudest when you touch the brakes lightly.

--
Sue ]

Bicycle helmets are really a bit of a scam.
They make most cyclists slightly less safe but there's money in selling them.

 

[Mark Thompson]

A bell is NOT a safety device. They are used either politely as an 'excuse
me' to let peds know you wish to pass, or as a way of enabling one to ride
at unsafe, anti-social speeds - ring that bell and it's ok to zip along in
a flash of metal and rider as people leap onto the verge.

Rather than insisting on the mandatory use of a bell to make pedestrians
scatter, legislators should be drafting laws that make it easier to call
irresponsible riders (and drivers) to account.

 

[mikey D]

x-no-archive: yes

i have and use a bell, though people tend to ignore it anyway.. shouting a
firm 'BIKE!' or 'lookout' in advance seems to have more effect..

perhaps i should try 'car!'- thats more likely to get people moving, withouy
having to waste time looking up first?

 

[[email protected]]

On Mon, 21 Aug 2006 19:10:48 +0100, "mikey D"
<[email protected]> wrote:

>x-no-archive: yes
>
>i have and use a bell, though people tend to ignore it anyway.. shouting a
>firm 'BIKE!' or 'lookout' in advance seems to have more effect..
>
>perhaps i should try 'car!'- thats more likely to get people moving, withouy
>having to waste time looking up first?
>
>
>
>
Yes, well, Ok, all right, all very reasonable, and all very aggrieved,
and all very throwing-up-one's-hands-in-despair, and so on and so
on... but unless you write to this cretin, Ladyman, *and* write to
your MP, *and* write to your MSP, nothing will get done. (If you
don't know their names and addresses, check your library, or the net -
http://www.parliament.uk/directories/directories.cfm ) Don't ignore
the House of Lords - they often can inject a degree of
non-party-political, common sense into legislation too-often nodded
through from the lobby-fodder which spends its sleeping hours in the
Commons. (Copy your letter to Brady.)

"All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do
nothing" - Edmund Burke.
So... if you want to have to be required to carry a bell on your bike
AT ALL TIMES, and if you want the first question anybody asks in the
event of an accident to be "Did the cyclist ring his/her bell?" (and
if the answer is "No" then your goose is on its way to being well and
truly cooked) then do nothing, and this legislation will reach the
statute book.
If Westminster can insist on a smoking ban in pubs, they can push this
through. If it does go though, I envisage it will be simply because
no-one in that funny-shaped building beside the Thames will accept
that there is a substantial lobby pointing out that the whole concept
is risible.