Why don't Roadies have bells on their bikes

Discussion in 'Australia and New Zealand' started by 40ish, Oct 26, 2004.

  1. Blah

    Blah Guest

    "Tamyka Bell" <[email protected]> wrote in message
    news:[email protected]

    I'm getting scared
    > by the number of physics geeks that appear to be popping out of the
    > aus.bicycle woodwork here...
    >


    That's what usenet is. A hangout for physics geeks. Mention that a helmet
    does anything, or nothing, to save your head (EXAMPLE! DON"T WANT TO HEAR
    ABOUT IT EITHER WAY, GEEKS) and you'll soon prove this.
     


  2. Mike

    Mike Guest

    dave wrote:

    > Yeah a polite little ding would have done the job there I guess.


    Nope. But an old-fashioned ring-ading-ding often works when others
    fail, in my experience. People know its a bike without any thought.

    But in your case above, a good air-horn would have been better.
    Horn for the road, bell for the shared paths.
     
  3. RV

    RV Guest

    On Mon, 01 Nov 2004 06:41:48 -0500, dave <[email protected]> wrote:

    >TimC wrote:
    >> On Wed, 27 Oct 2004 at 06:16 GMT, hippy (aka Bruce)
    >> was almost, but not quite, entirely unlike tea:
    >>
    >>>"TimC" <[email protected]
    >>>
    >>>>I may not win, but I'd say 'What's quicker to do, and more likely to
    >>>>be heard: A "Hey, idiot, watch where you're going!", or a polite
    >>>>little "ding ding"'?
    >>>
    >>>Change the law by arguing that it's safer to have both
    >>>hands operating the brakes rather than a bell. Using
    >>>your voice as the "warning device" frees your hands
    >>>for emergency action..

    >>

    >Yesterday my training partner Ian had the nearest near miss I have ever
    >actually seen with a pedestrian. This was on Station St Aspendale where
    >fast cyclists are sooo rare :)
    >
    >Guy walks straight out from the cerb.. not even a glance... Ian yells
    >"Hey" moves right.. Guy keeps coming.. Ian yells "Watch out mate"
    >moves furthur right.. I drop off his wheeel.. Our hero still does not
    >even glance at us.. keeps walking Ian screams at him swerves
    >right.. brushes the guy who stumbles as he very nearly walks into Ians
    >back wheel...and hovers doubled over it for a second before falling over
    >on to the road just behind Ian


    Ian doesnt have the sense to use the BRAKES on his bicycle.
    A bell wont solve that.
    Maybe a day in court defending his knocking a ped on his arse becuase
    Ian failed to avoid a collision or brake will solve it..
     
  4. bjay

    bjay Guest


    > Ian doesnt have the sense to use the BRAKES on his bicycle.
    > A bell wont solve that.
    > Maybe a day in court defending his knocking a ped on his arse becuase
    > Ian failed to avoid a collision or brake will solve it..


    Yeah, that's right. Why should pedestrians look both ways before crossing
    the road, cars have brakes!!

    I think the point here was that the pedestrian took no responsibility for
    his own safety!

    bjay
     
  5. RV

    RV Guest

    On Mon, 1 Nov 2004 15:05:15 +0800, "bjay"
    <[email protected]> wrote:

    >
    >
    >> Ian doesnt have the sense to use the BRAKES on his bicycle.
    >> A bell wont solve that.
    >> Maybe a day in court defending his knocking a ped on his arse becuase
    >> Ian failed to avoid a collision or brake will solve it..

    >
    >Yeah, that's right. Why should pedestrians look both ways before crossing
    >the road, cars have brakes!!
    >
    >I think the point here was that the pedestrian took no responsibility for
    >his own safety!


    There is no excuse for not braking to avoid a pedestrian that a
    magistrate will accept.
    Nor should they.
     
  6. >>>>> "bjay" == bjay <[email protected]> writes:

    >> Ian doesnt have the sense to use the BRAKES on his bicycle. A
    >> bell wont solve that. Maybe a day in court defending his
    >> knocking a ped on his arse becuase Ian failed to avoid a
    >> collision or brake will solve it..


    bjay> Yeah, that's right. Why should pedestrians look both ways
    bjay> before crossing the road, cars have brakes!!

    bjay> I think the point here was that the pedestrian took no
    bjay> responsibility for his own safety!

    That doesn't absolve the rider from his responsibilities. If I took
    that attitude with cars I'd have been squashed flat a long time ago,
    likewise motorists making allowances for me falling off my bike in the
    middle of the road has saved my bacon on occasion.

    We're supposed to work *with* each other, not get in to a pissing
    contest about who is right.
    --
    Cheers
    Euan (the Beautific)
     
  7. bjay

    bjay Guest


    > There is no excuse for not braking to avoid a pedestrian that a
    > magistrate will accept.
    > Nor should they.


    Correct, but you are missing my point, the pedestrian didn't bother looking
    before stepping off the curb. He initiated this incident. What would
    happen if he had stepped out giving no time for the cyclist to brake? What
    I am saying is that people need to take responsibility for their own actions
    rather than expecting others to make allowances for them and then blaming
    the other person for their own stupidity if something does go wrong.
    Stepping out into the road without looking is just a plain stupid thing to
    do.

    bjay
     
  8. On Mon, 01 Nov 2004 06:41:48 -0500, dave <[email protected]> wrote:

    >Yesterday my training partner Ian had the nearest near miss I have ever
    >actually seen with a pedestrian.


    Is this the beer making Ian?

    >This was on Station St Aspendale where
    >fast cyclists are sooo rare :)


    And where Kath and Kim would be considered sophisticated socialites.

    That's more or less where Zander T-boned a right turning P-plater a
    couple of years ago.

    Got to be careful when you go into the badlands :)


    --
    Regards.
    Richard.
     
  9. dave

    dave Guest

    TimC wrote:
    > On Wed, 27 Oct 2004 at 06:16 GMT, hippy (aka Bruce)
    > was almost, but not quite, entirely unlike tea:
    >
    >>"TimC" <[email protected]
    >>
    >>>I may not win, but I'd say 'What's quicker to do, and more likely to
    >>>be heard: A "Hey, idiot, watch where you're going!", or a polite
    >>>little "ding ding"'?

    >>
    >>Change the law by arguing that it's safer to have both
    >>hands operating the brakes rather than a bell. Using
    >>your voice as the "warning device" frees your hands
    >>for emergency action..

    >

    Yesterday my training partner Ian had the nearest near miss I have ever
    actually seen with a pedestrian. This was on Station St Aspendale where
    fast cyclists are sooo rare :)

    Guy walks straight out from the cerb.. not even a glance... Ian yells
    "Hey" moves right.. Guy keeps coming.. Ian yells "Watch out mate"
    moves furthur right.. I drop off his wheeel.. Our hero still does not
    even glance at us.. keeps walking Ian screams at him swerves
    right.. brushes the guy who stumbles as he very nearly walks into Ians
    back wheel...and hovers doubled over it for a second before falling over
    on to the road just behind Ian

    Yeah a polite little ding would have done the job there I guess.

    Dave
     
  10. dave

    dave Guest

    TimC wrote:
    > On Wed, 27 Oct 2004 at 06:16 GMT, hippy (aka Bruce)
    > was almost, but not quite, entirely unlike tea:
    >
    >>"TimC" <[email protected]
    >>
    >>>I may not win, but I'd say 'What's quicker to do, and more likely to
    >>>be heard: A "Hey, idiot, watch where you're going!", or a polite
    >>>little "ding ding"'?

    >>
    >>Change the law by arguing that it's safer to have both
    >>hands operating the brakes rather than a bell. Using
    >>your voice as the "warning device" frees your hands
    >>for emergency action..

    >

    Yesterday my training partner Ian had the nearest near miss I have ever
    actually seen with a pedestrian. This was on Station St Aspendale where
    fast cyclists are sooo rare :)

    Guy walks straight out from the cerb.. not even a glance... Ian yells
    "Hey" moves right.. Guy keeps coming.. Ian yells "Watch out mate"
    moves furthur right.. I drop off his wheeel.. Our hero still does not
    even glance at us.. keeps walking Ian screams at him swerves
    right.. brushes the guy who stumbles as he very nearly walks into Ians
    back wheel...and hovers doubled over it for a second before falling over
    on to the road just behind Ian

    Yeah a polite little ding would have done the job there I guess.

    Dave
     
  11. matt

    matt Guest

    Hi there,

    I suspect others have posted similar questions in the past, but I could
    not find the right answer yet.

    So here is my situation:
    Looking for a bike to ride in the hills of Cairns, but I am not a
    downhill racer.

    I enjoy up and down, and my current bike (Spezialized Enduro Comp) just
    feels heavy.

    So I have been looking and thinking - what do you reckon about:

    Santa Cruz Blur

    Yeti AS 575 ?

    Ellsworth Truth

    And what about Moutain Cycle Fury, Titus or other 'boutique brands'?

    What is the support like in Oz, and are these bikes really the 'all
    mountain bike'?
    Has anyone imported a bike/frame from the US and what experiences did
    you make?

    Thanks for any help,

    Cheers,

    matt
     
  12. RV

    RV Guest

    On Mon, 1 Nov 2004 16:16:55 +0800, "bjay"
    <[email protected]> wrote:

    >
    >> There is no excuse for not braking to avoid a pedestrian that a
    >> magistrate will accept.
    >> Nor should they.

    >
    >Correct, but you are missing my point, the pedestrian didn't bother looking
    >before stepping off the curb. He initiated this incident.


    Irrelevant
    The law is the same law for all of us
    Failure to brake and avoid the ped is against the law, dont matter if
    you are on a tricycle, a donkey or a car.
    End of story.
     
  13. RV

    RV Guest

    On Mon, 01 Nov 2004 20:31:13 -0500, dave <[email protected]> wrote:

    >bjay wrote:
    >>>There is no excuse for not braking to avoid a pedestrian that a
    >>>magistrate will accept.
    >>>Nor should they.

    >>
    >>
    >> Correct, but you are missing my point, the pedestrian didn't bother looking
    >> before stepping off the curb. He initiated this incident. What would
    >> happen if he had stepped out giving no time for the cyclist to brake? What
    >> I am saying is that people need to take responsibility for their own actions
    >> rather than expecting others to make allowances for them and then blaming
    >> the other person for their own stupidity if something does go wrong.
    >> Stepping out into the road without looking is just a plain stupid thing to
    >> do.
    >>
    >> bjay
    >>
    >>

    >Yeah. I cannot say how much I despise the attitude..."I didnt see the
    >'bike' 'truck', 'semi' , ' train' and obviously therefore it was the
    >'roads', 'intersection', 'level crossings fault.
    >
    >He not only didn't look... he didnt listen.. in fact he showed the
    >spatial awareness of a light pole. And nearly the same intelligence.
    >
    >These people IMHO are always going to have an accident. And if they
    >live it is only cos they are in the bigger vehicle.
    >


    Irrelevant
    The rider of the bicycle broke the law by noit braking to avoid the
    ped.
    Any excuse is simply a denial of guilt and doesn't excuse the offence.
     
  14. dave

    dave Guest

    RV wrote:
    > On Mon, 01 Nov 2004 06:41:48 -0500, dave <[email protected]> wrote:
    >
    >
    >>TimC wrote:
    >>
    >>>On Wed, 27 Oct 2004 at 06:16 GMT, hippy (aka Bruce)
    >>> was almost, but not quite, entirely unlike tea:
    >>>
    >>>
    >>>>"TimC" <[email protected]
    >>>>
    >>>>
    >>>>>I may not win, but I'd say 'What's quicker to do, and more likely to
    >>>>>be heard: A "Hey, idiot, watch where you're going!", or a polite
    >>>>>little "ding ding"'?
    >>>>
    >>>>Change the law by arguing that it's safer to have both
    >>>>hands operating the brakes rather than a bell. Using
    >>>>your voice as the "warning device" frees your hands
    >>>>for emergency action..
    >>>

    >>Yesterday my training partner Ian had the nearest near miss I have ever
    >>actually seen with a pedestrian. This was on Station St Aspendale where
    >>fast cyclists are sooo rare :)
    >>
    >>Guy walks straight out from the cerb.. not even a glance... Ian yells
    >>"Hey" moves right.. Guy keeps coming.. Ian yells "Watch out mate"
    >>moves furthur right.. I drop off his wheeel.. Our hero still does not
    >>even glance at us.. keeps walking Ian screams at him swerves
    >>right.. brushes the guy who stumbles as he very nearly walks into Ians
    >>back wheel...and hovers doubled over it for a second before falling over
    >>on to the road just behind Ian

    >
    >
    > Ian doesnt have the sense to use the BRAKES on his bicycle.
    > A bell wont solve that.
    > Maybe a day in court defending his knocking a ped on his arse becuase
    > Ian failed to avoid a collision or brake will solve it..
    >
    >

    Oh no I have to have a go here. What a f**** stupid thing to say.
    Woth me on his arse Ian moved as much as 3 metres to dodge the moron.
    If he had been doing a legal 60 kph in a car.. he probably couldnt have
    dodged the fuckwit. You are only required to make all "reasonable
    efforts to avoid a collision. You are not required to stay home in case
    someone walks in front of you. And if ian had gone down I would have
    made bloody sure we got all the peds details to sue his arse of.

    You go play with your idiot kindred spirit mate.
    Incidently if Ian had been going a fraction slower the ped would have
    walked straight into him.

    Piss of you

    Dave
     
  15. Paulus

    Paulus Guest

    "RV" <[email protected]> wrote in message
    news:[email protected]
    > On Mon, 1 Nov 2004 16:16:55 +0800, "bjay"
    > <[email protected]> wrote:
    >
    > >
    > >> There is no excuse for not braking to avoid a pedestrian that a
    > >> magistrate will accept.
    > >> Nor should they.

    > >
    > >Correct, but you are missing my point, the pedestrian didn't bother

    looking
    > >before stepping off the curb. He initiated this incident.

    >
    > Irrelevant
    > The law is the same law for all of us
    > Failure to brake and avoid the ped is against the law, dont matter if
    > you are on a tricycle, a donkey or a car.
    > End of story.
    >


    Unles the pred was crossing at a set of lights, then I say he was
    jaywalking. This means HE/SHE IS AT FAULT!
     
  16. dave

    dave Guest

    RV wrote:
    > On Mon, 1 Nov 2004 15:05:15 +0800, "bjay"
    > <[email protected]> wrote:
    >
    >
    >>
    >>>Ian doesnt have the sense to use the BRAKES on his bicycle.
    >>>A bell wont solve that.
    >>>Maybe a day in court defending his knocking a ped on his arse becuase
    >>>Ian failed to avoid a collision or brake will solve it..

    >>
    >>Yeah, that's right. Why should pedestrians look both ways before crossing
    >>the road, cars have brakes!!
    >>
    >>I think the point here was that the pedestrian took no responsibility for
    >>his own safety!

    >
    >
    > There is no excuse for not braking to avoid a pedestrian that a
    > magistrate will accept.
    > Nor should they.
    >

    Is a stupid thing to say... really. perhaps we should have stopped and
    watched him....

    In fact I wonce braked to dodge a bped.. stopped and then had the woman
    walk into me.. Clearly by your logic.. my fault.

    An enormous number of people have been acquited over the years of such
    charges.. The test is to act in the way a reasonablke person would think
    prudent.

    You of course fail the test of a reasonable person.

    Good thing we were not traveling at the speed limit.. We would have been
    so in the wrong then..

    Dave
     
  17. bjay

    bjay Guest


    >>> There is no excuse for not braking to avoid a pedestrian that a
    >>> magistrate will accept.
    >>> Nor should they.

    >>
    >>Correct, but you are missing my point, the pedestrian didn't bother
    >>looking
    >>before stepping off the curb. He initiated this incident.

    >
    > Irrelevant
    > The law is the same law for all of us
    > Failure to brake and avoid the ped is against the law, dont matter if
    > you are on a tricycle, a donkey or a car.
    > End of story.



    Hmmm, it seems that you are never quite going to grasp the concept of
    accepting responsibility for your own actions. Ah well, I tried.
     
  18. Tamyka Bell

    Tamyka Bell Guest

    Paulus wrote:
    >
    > "RV" <[email protected]> wrote in message
    > news:[email protected]
    > > On Mon, 1 Nov 2004 16:16:55 +0800, "bjay"
    > > <[email protected]> wrote:
    > >
    > > >
    > > >> There is no excuse for not braking to avoid a pedestrian that a
    > > >> magistrate will accept.
    > > >> Nor should they.
    > > >
    > > >Correct, but you are missing my point, the pedestrian didn't bother

    > looking
    > > >before stepping off the curb. He initiated this incident.

    > >
    > > Irrelevant
    > > The law is the same law for all of us
    > > Failure to brake and avoid the ped is against the law, dont matter if
    > > you are on a tricycle, a donkey or a car.
    > > End of story.
    > >

    >
    > Unles the pred was crossing at a set of lights, then I say he was
    > jaywalking. This means HE/SHE IS AT FAULT!


    Doesn't the law state to give way to pedestrians at all time? Then the
    fact that they were committing a crime does not absolve you of blame.

    Not that I am necessarily agreeing with the law...

    T
     
  19. dave

    dave Guest

    bjay wrote:
    >>There is no excuse for not braking to avoid a pedestrian that a
    >>magistrate will accept.
    >>Nor should they.

    >
    >
    > Correct, but you are missing my point, the pedestrian didn't bother looking
    > before stepping off the curb. He initiated this incident. What would
    > happen if he had stepped out giving no time for the cyclist to brake? What
    > I am saying is that people need to take responsibility for their own actions
    > rather than expecting others to make allowances for them and then blaming
    > the other person for their own stupidity if something does go wrong.
    > Stepping out into the road without looking is just a plain stupid thing to
    > do.
    >
    > bjay
    >
    >

    Yeah. I cannot say how much I despise the attitude..."I didnt see the
    'bike' 'truck', 'semi' , ' train' and obviously therefore it was the
    'roads', 'intersection', 'level crossings fault.

    He not only didn't look... he didnt listen.. in fact he showed the
    spatial awareness of a light pole. And nearly the same intelligence.

    These people IMHO are always going to have an accident. And if they
    live it is only cos they are in the bigger vehicle.

    Dave
     
  20. RV

    RV Guest

    On Tue, 2 Nov 2004 11:26:50 +1100, "Paulus"
    <[email protected]> wrote:

    >
    >"RV" <[email protected]> wrote in message
    >news:[email protected]
    >> On Mon, 1 Nov 2004 16:16:55 +0800, "bjay"
    >> <[email protected]> wrote:
    >>
    >> >
    >> >> There is no excuse for not braking to avoid a pedestrian that a
    >> >> magistrate will accept.
    >> >> Nor should they.
    >> >
    >> >Correct, but you are missing my point, the pedestrian didn't bother

    >looking
    >> >before stepping off the curb. He initiated this incident.

    >>
    >> Irrelevant
    >> The law is the same law for all of us
    >> Failure to brake and avoid the ped is against the law, dont matter if
    >> you are on a tricycle, a donkey or a car.
    >> End of story.
    >>

    >
    >Unles the pred was crossing at a set of lights, then I say he was
    >jaywalking. This means HE/SHE IS AT FAULT!
    >


    He may be but that doesnt release you from the law that requires you
    to brake and avoid the ped.
     
Loading...
Loading...