Re: To Ding or not to Ding
Posted: Thu Feb 14, 2013 10:39 pm
Anybody run one of THESE?
BNA - For the Australian Cycling Community
http://www.bicycles.net.au/forums/
Gee... just clip on an exposed cable, eh? I think Tiagra still has exposed cables.il padrone wrote:http://www.rbbell.com/
No, but I use one of these. Works quite well, no problems. I might be fussy and want a slightly deeper "ting", but that's only because I have the rather lurvely Lowrider bell, with its mellow "Ding DONG" tone, on the other bike.Mulger bill wrote:Anybody run one of THESE?
Ummm... given we aren't allowed to hit peds., what would you have done if they had just ignored you? Because it looked to me that you were expecting them to move out of your way and were going too quick to stop.bychosis wrote:Here is an example of why I don't always ding.
Noticed peds walking up ahead....
Go Pro? The wide angle lens does tend to exaggerate the speed of travel. Looked to me like he was on the brakes, did come to a near stop, and would have completed it if they had not moved.twizzle wrote:Ummm... given we aren't allowed to hit peds., what would you have done if they had just ignored you? Because it looked to me that you were expecting them to move out of your way and were going too quick to stop.
Regardless of who is wearing them none should loose awareness. They are not turn our only sense and these days with cars that are so quite that even on a back road you don't hear them till they have gone past are not one that I put much reliance onRonK wrote:Only pedestrians though - cycling wearers never loose awareness.twizzle wrote:The general assumption (based on experience) is that headphones result in complete loss of awareness for the wearer.
Yes, GoPro, travelling 26km/h at the time. After riding the path for several years commuting I can usually pick when something is awry with the pedestrians and am prepared for evasive action. In this case slowed, dinged, covered brakes... then used them to great effect. Had the daughter not been dragged right I would have slipped through the gap safely at probably 15-17km/h under brakes. As it was the phone GPS got me as low as 13km/h.il padrone wrote:Go Pro? The wide angle lens does tend to exaggerate the speed of travel. Looked to me like he was on the brakes, did come to a near stop, and would have completed it if they had not moved.twizzle wrote:Ummm... given we aren't allowed to hit peds., what would you have done if they had just ignored you? Because it looked to me that you were expecting them to move out of your way and were going too quick to stop.
Hi bychosis,I would not approach a pedestrian at that speed. And the daughter "was not dragged right"bychosis wrote:Yes, GoPro, travelling 26km/h at the time. After riding the path for several years commuting I can usually pick when something is awry with the pedestrians and am prepared for evasive action. In this case slowed, dinged, covered brakes... then used them to great effect. Had the daughter not been dragged right I would have slipped through the gap safely at probably 15-17km/h under brakes. As it was the phone GPS got me as low as 13km/h.il padrone wrote:Go Pro? The wide angle lens does tend to exaggerate the speed of travel. Looked to me like he was on the brakes, did come to a near stop, and would have completed it if they had not moved.twizzle wrote:Ummm... given we aren't allowed to hit peds., what would you have done if they had just ignored you? Because it looked to me that you were expecting them to move out of your way and were going too quick to stop.
Edited for actual speeds.
Seems pretty normal for wide, open bike path riding speed to me. 26kmh general speed, then slowing as I approach any pedestrians. If the pedestrians are predictable, there's good room and I've dinged them with the bell, I will normally go past at ~20kmh; a bit less if it is a tighter space.outnabike wrote:Hi bychosis,I would not approach a pedestrian at that speed. And the daughter "was not dragged right"
Strange statement?? Your second sentence is a textbook definition of sheep-like behaviouroutnabike wrote:And I reckon you are mistaken as to sheep like behaviour. The girl instinctively followed mum who was quickly off the path.
Agreed. And there is plenty of room to bail onto the grass too if necessary. I have done that when I couldn't be bothered waiting for the peds to sort themselves out (not to avoid a collision) but then I'm running 32s so it's no hassle for me.il padrone wrote:Seems pretty normal for wide, open bike path riding speed to me. 26kmh general speed, then slowing as I approach any pedestrians. If the pedestrians are predictable, there's good room and I've dinged them with the bell, I will normally go past at ~20kmh; a bit less if it is a tighter space.outnabike wrote:Hi bychosis,I would not approach a pedestrian at that speed. And the daughter "was not dragged right"
Ah, O.K. wide angle. Throwing the words "emergency brake" into the original description also adds to the look of speed, I did watch it four times trying to get a handle on how fast it happened.bychosis wrote:Yes, GoPro, travelling 26km/h at the time. ....
You dung far, far, far too late. I'd have been dinging from MUCH further back. You give them almost no time to respond at that speed.bychosis wrote:Here is an example of why I don't always ding.
Noticed peds walking up ahead, one on the right of the path, looking like they were wandering, not walking. Slowed, dinged and expected some sort of reaction, just not what I got. Mum heads off the path to the right and then grabs daughter to pull her off to the right too into my path. Emergency brake, evade, "whoa, go left, go left" response "sorry, sorry, sorry" from mum. Think they were walking along in a world of their own and the motherly instinct to protect child caused more problems than they should have.
+1. I think I hear a faint ding (a failed one?) at 0:09 then a louder one, and the pedestrians are in panic mode cos you're on them by 0:11. If you give people time they'll sort themselves out much more safely, and won't go home having just had the crap scared out of them by a cyclist on a shared path. You had enough time to give a ding much further back - maybe you did and I just can't hear it - but I can hear the others when you get really close. Given that the path is narrow and they don't have to get off the path to get out of your way (eg. they could go single file or walk closer together), it seems that if you needed to emergency brake, you were going too fast.arkle wrote:You dung far, far, far too late. I'd have been dinging from MUCH further back. You give them almost no time to respond at that speed.bychosis wrote:Here is an example of why I don't always ding.
Noticed peds walking up ahead, one on the right of the path, looking like they were wandering, not walking. Slowed, dinged and expected some sort of reaction, just not what I got. Mum heads off the path to the right and then grabs daughter to pull her off to the right too into my path. Emergency brake, evade, "whoa, go left, go left" response "sorry, sorry, sorry" from mum. Think they were walking along in a world of their own and the motherly instinct to protect child caused more problems than they should have.
arkle
No it isn't. It's an example of using a bell badly. Regardless of speed, 2.5 seconds to hear a quiet ding, recognise it's meaning, turn, look, decide to move and move is an impossibly short time.twizzle wrote:People talking often don't hear a damned thing.
Yes, the discussion comes across as a bit harsh, but the vid makes it look questionable even if the reality isn't.
Given the actual speeds as indicated if the follow-up post, it was all quite slow speed, and it *is* a good example of where using a bell has bad consequences.