Bell gripe

[wombatK]

On my usual 10km commute to work today (Niddrie -> Parkville, in Melbourne), at about 5:40 am I was passing a construction site and a truck was parked right across the bike lane (no probs here, he was just waiting to turn into the site).

As I approached the truck, I had a look over my shoulder and started to move out. Suddenly out of nowhere comes a flash of red and white spandex - I saw the other cyclist just in time and barely avoided a collision. This guy had decided that silently passing me with about 30cm of clearance on my right would be a good idea just as I was approaching a truck which was straddled across the bike lane.

Was this a bicycle lane, strictly as defined in the Road Rules (Rule 153), was the other rider riding in the same lane as you (even if it wasn't a bicycle lane), and did either of you actually cross the lane markings ?

It seems the other cyclist was not riding abreast of you (given his much higher speed). As you've described it, it appears this other cyclist was overtaking you - possibly in the same lane either because you were in it all the time, or you both had changed lanes before he was abreast of you.

There is an obligation on cyclists to use the bicycle lane where practicable. So, if it was strictly a bicycle lane, for him to be complying with this law, he would need to have been behind you in the bicycle lane prior to the obstruction where the truck was. Then, either both of you had to veer to the right of the bicycle lane, or across into the adjacent lane.

overtake, for a driver, means the action of:
(a) approaching from behind another driver travelling in the same marked lane or line of traffic; and
(b) moving into an adjacent marked lane or part of the road on which there is room for a line of traffic (whether or not the lane or part of the road is for drivers travelling in the same direction); and
(c) passing the other driver while travelling in the adjacent marked lane or line of traffic

You were virtually overtaking a parked vehicle, and this clown wants to overtake you. He is very much like some complete tool bags drivers who will attempt to overtake another vehicle which is already overtaking another vehicle (drive long enough and you will see fools doing this).

There are obligations under Rule 140 No Overtaking Unless Safe To Do So for not overtaking when there is not a clear view of approaching traffic. Unless he has x-ray vision, I doubt he could see all the approaching traffic (e.g. vehicles ahead of the truck presenting dangers).

There is a further stronger obligation under Rule 144 Keeping a Safe Distance When Overtaking. I don't think passing within 30 cm of another cycle (i.e within elbow distance) satisfies this.

This sort of behaviour might be acceptable on a race track or in a racing bunch - but it's not reasonable in everyday riding. And ringing a bell or calling passing before executing an illegal manoeuvre does not make it legal (and neither does using a car horn legalise illegal driving).

While it is illegal to ride on the road without a bell (see Rule 258), your gripe should not be about the bell but rather about the illegal overtaking.

Having a mirror on your bike might be useful in that you could see trouble coming and brace yourself for it, but ultimately it would be more useful if the offending cyclist learned to ride legally and with consideration for other road user's safety.

Lastly, if it was a real bicycle lane, are you really sure that parking as the truck was doing was allowed by the signage at that point or relevant legislation for your state ? As I read the Australian road rules, stopping and parking vehicles in bicycle lanes is generally not allowed - see Rule 188 (buses, taxis, and emergency, council or utility vehicles may be exempted under other legislation). As your near-miss shows, allowing stopping or parking of vehicles in bicycle lanes can defeat the point of them. Do bicycle lanes in your state have signs which permit parking or was the truck one of the exempted categories ?

Cheers

[twizzle]

+1, wombatK. If the guy had any brains he wouldn't have been trying to overtake when it was likely that the cyclist head was about to go around an obstruction. Total failure to engage in 'defensive riding'. Which I find offensive.

[il padrone]

My point was that when he opened up with the condescending "When you do as much riding as I do ..." line he was assuming that I was a noob because I wasn't in pantomime costume.

Maybe his assumption was based on the fact that you changed lanes right into his path?

Umm.... ?

BrownOnionThighs changed lanes into what he observed was an empty lane (he's made it clear he did a proper headcheck). The roadwarrior did a similar lane change and overtook in an unsafe manner. Clear law breaker.

[hitch]

Anyway, why wouldn't you have a bell? They cost all of $1.99.

It may be illegal to sell a bike without a bell ( i think), but i've bought three bikes from 3 different shops in the last 14 months - MTB came with reflectors, no bell - Fixed Gear came with no reflectors & no bell, and road bike came with no reflectors and no bell. Admittedly I would probably have (and did) removed them all pretty soon, but given (my understanding is) you have to sell a bike with reflectors and a bell, the shops themselves don't respect this too much. I knew it was (i believe) a requirement, but most people out there wouldn't....

[kukamunga]

A head check by a cyclist in front of you should indicate to you their possible intention to 'change lanes'. Hand signals on a bike aren't always practical or possible

On the road in slower, sub-60kmh vehicular traffic, I give frequent head checks with exagerated head movement
over my right shoulder, and often find cars treat this as a flashing right hand indicator and give me room - not always but sometimes

Headchecks take a bit of skill, focus and spatial awareness to pull off safely on a bicycle. When overtaking cyclists or pedestrians, I use my bell or voice to indicate my presence

[wombatK]

Admittedly I would probably have (and did) removed them all pretty soon, but given (my understanding is) you have to sell a bike with reflectors and a bell, the shops themselves don't respect this too much. I knew it was (i believe) a requirement, but most people out there wouldn't....

Doesn't matter what the shops do, you will be the one who bears the cost of contributory negligence should you be involved in a collision with a motor vehicle, or other road user. The bike shop might be assuming you are going to ride it entirely off-road (e.g. velodrome). A bike without a bell fails to meet the Australian Standard, but that does not relieve you of the responsibility under the road rules to have a bell. If you think you are smarter than the people who draft the rules, don't expect sympathy should it turn pear-shaped for you.

[2wheels]

Bells aren't really all that useful when pedestrians and other riders have ipods on. And cars that have their windows up. I used to have a bell but ditched it cos I needed space on the handlebars for lights plus getting frustrated cos ipodders just didn't hear you anyway. Riding safely, always mindful of others around you and anticipating others actions are more important IMO.

[Chris249]

My point was that when he opened up with the condescending "When you do as much riding as I do ..." line he was assuming that I was a noob because I wasn't in pantomime costume.

Maybe his assumption was based on the fact that you changed lanes right into his path?

Umm.... ?

BrownOnionThighs changed lanes into what he observed was an empty lane (he's made it clear he did a proper headcheck). The roadwarrior did a similar lane change and overtook in an unsafe manner. Clear law breaker.

Really? We don't know all the circumstances.

How far from the truck was the OP when he changed lanes? Was he 5m from it? 10m from it? 50m from it? The distance at which people pull out to overtake peds can vary by a factor of 10 or so, therefore it's not easy to predict when someone is going to pull out.

How long was it between the head check and the lane switch?

It is possible that the other rider could have seen the head check when the OP was 50m from the truck and assumed that the OP was merely doing a routine check and would not pull out until he was closer to the truck. Or the other cyclist could have assumed that the OP would not pull to the right without indicating. Or the other cyclist could have assumed that the OP had seen him coming up fast from behind and was going to let him through (similar to the way when one is driving slowly, one doesn't pull out just in front of faster traffic). Or the other cyclist could have been a prat....

I'm not saying the OP was really in the wrong, just that we just don't really have the facts to base a decision on.

[wombatK]

It is possible that the other rider could have seen the head check when the OP was 50m from the truck and assumed that the OP was merely doing a routine check and would not pull out until he was closer to the truck. Or the other cyclist could have assumed that the OP would not pull to the right without indicating. Or the other cyclist could have assumed that the OP had seen him coming up fast from behind and was going to let him through (similar to the way when one is driving slowly, one doesn't pull out just in front of faster traffic).

There's a lot of assumptions and possibles in there .

The point of the law is that it puts the onus on the overtaker to do so with safety. Not with lots of assumptions or optimistic guesses about what might have to happen to make it safe.

Cheers

[m@]

It is possible that the other rider could have seen the head check when the OP was 50m from the truck and assumed that the OP was merely doing a routine check and would not pull out until he was closer to the truck. Or the other cyclist could have assumed that the OP would not pull to the right without indicating. Or the other cyclist could have assumed that the OP had seen him coming up fast from behind and was going to let him through (similar to the way when one is driving slowly, one doesn't pull out just in front of faster traffic).

There's a lot of assumptions and possibles in there .

The point of the law is that it puts the onus on the overtaker to do so with safety. Not with lots of assumptions or optimistic guesses about what might have to happen to make it safe.

Cheers

True, however the law also puts the onus on a person moving into an adjacent lane to do so safely, and to indicate their intention before changing lanes. Really we don't have enough information to determine who was legally at fault - but pragmatically it doesn't matter; the lessons are to exercise situational awareness and common sense when overtaking and changing lanes.

By my reading both the OP and the other rider failed in this instance - which is fine, we all make mistakes and no-one was hurt - the important thing is to learn from it and do better in future.

/2c

[Chris249]

I'm with M@.

Yes, there were a lot of possibles in my post....that just shows how many alternatives there were in which the other rider could have been in the right - so why hang, draw and quarter them?

And as M@ says, the law also puts quite a bit of onus on the person being overtaken. Some matters have seen the responsibility split 50/50 between the overtaker who failed to allow for the person pulling out, and the person who failed to check that they were clear to pull out and pulled out in front of the overtaker. Check Austlii.

There is a responsibility to overtake safely, yes. There is also a responsibility not to pull out without making sure that it is safe to do so. Both the overtaker and the overtaken have brakes and can use them if they are in doubt.

Once again, I am NOT saying the OP was necessarily at fault, merely that we have heard just one side of the story.

[kukamunga]

One of the best bells I have found is a brass 'incredi-bell' style item labelled "n+1" from Abbotsford Cycles here in Melbourne for $8. It lets out the most pure, loud, long lasting "piiiiiiinggggg" I have yet heard on a bicycle bell. I do not know who distributes them.....

Found an image..... [color=#BF0000]http://www.nuvo.ws/n+1/n ... ml[/color]

Just refreshing this thread.....

On a beautiful 27 degree Melbourne April Saturday yesterday , my six year old son and I rode from the city along the popular Yarra/Capital City, Gardiners and Scotchmans Creek trails. There were lots of other cyclists of all descriptions out on these trails also, doing what they do

I was totally surprised that despite the fact that my son and I gave plenty of warning with our bells when overtaking other trail users, NOT ONCE did I hear a bell (or a voice) being used by other trail users when we were being overtaken!! This was especially annoying when done by a large minority of the cycling trail users treating the paths as velo-training-expressways - on a saturday afternoon (so probably not commuting)

At one point, I pulled over at a wide section of the Yarra Trail with my son behind me after yelling back to him "Stopping!" (as I do). Admittedly, without looking properly behind me, I started to do a u-turn to retrieve a trail map I'd seen on the path

"TRACK!!" I heard yelled by a 'middle-aged' woman on a 'comfort bike' at the last second as she came to an abrupt halt from a cracking pace with her husband not far behind. She cursed at me for daring to slow her down (on a bike path) and continued on, without even bothering to use her bell. I apologised, but I think this fell on deaf ears, as she was already 'back up to speed' and off in a huff, with her husband 'in tow'.....

"....30km loop of sealed, car-free paths"; "...get to know Melbourne and its landmarks"; "Feel the serenity as you ride...."; "....especially suited to children, family groups or the less confident rider"; "....share the space with people of all ages and paces including those walking, rollerblading' using prams, jogging and tricycling"; "When overtaking.....call out or ring a bell"; "Ride at an appropriate speed"

I don't have eyes in the back of my head. My hearing works perfectly well. If you want to ride fast -

get off the friggin' bike paths and on to the friggin' roads

numb-skulls (oh.... and use your bells well in advance when planning to overtake)

Thank you for listening

[casual_cyclist]

If you want to ride fast -
get off the friggin' bike paths and on to the friggin' roads numb-skulls

+1 to that. I am not sure why shared paths are seen as good places to train. They are not.

(oh.... and use your bells well in advance when planning to overtake)

I actually prefer to call "bike passing". I find I get more response to a human voice. On my last long ride there were four of us riding single file down a shared path. I was in front so as I passed peds and cyclists I called "bike passing" as I approached and as I passed, said "there are three more too". That got a really good response. A short laugh followed by a thanks. I also make sure I always thank peds for moving over, to which I mostly get a "you're welcome" or "no worries". Good shared path behaviour goes both ways and by engaging with other path users I have very few problems.

Thank you for listening

Always a pleasure

[Cinder]

Bells aren't really all that useful when pedestrians and other riders have ipods on. And cars that have their windows up. I used to have a bell but ditched it cos I needed space on the handlebars for lights plus getting frustrated cos ipodders just didn't hear you anyway. Riding safely, always mindful of others around you and anticipating others actions are more important IMO.

Exactly.

I don't have bells on my bikes anymore either. I dabbled with them but found people either ignored them, were startled by them and stepped into my path or, as was usually the case didn't hear them for whatever reason (eg iPods). It wasn't a major influencing factor when I decided not to have bells, but I also find them really irritating (guess that's the idea).

I'm pretty chilled when riding so, when on a bike path, I simply slow down, and do a nice easy "excuse me" or something similar, then a "ta" when they move and apologise for being in the road. Positive interaction with Joe public FTW.

When cutting it with cars I'm all about me not getting hurt, but your kidding your self if you think a bell is going to help in making a driver of anything with a combustion engine aware of your presence.

On the other side of the bell coin, random, but sort of related, off topic story.

Me and my girlie were on a cruisy ride into the city one Sunday (along capital city trail/the Blvd for Melbournians). People were out walking dogs, few riders lazing around on the bike path, kids EVERYWHERE, all was peachy, we all know the vibe, until a couple of guys in lycra came hurtling along, i'd guess about 35-40kph, on the bike path (right beside the nice wide road with bike lane mind you) dinging their bells like crazy at all the people out walking. To say the least, it was somewhat irritating and really not doing the cyclists image with Joe Public any good.

[hannos]

I know it's illegal but I also do not have a bell on my bike. My voice is much louder than any bicycle bell I've come across.

[kukamunga]

I recognise a bike bell as a bike approaching - a distant voice could be a jogger, a pedestrian, or someone calling their dog (especially if their dog is called 'Passing')

A good bike bell can be heard and recognised a fair distance away, and have always worked for me, especially if rung early as approaching, and repeated just before overtaking

Don't let bicycle bells become obsolete, other wise we'll all be yelling, New York style:

"Hey! Can't ya see I'm ridin' here??!!"

[Max]

This reminds me of something I saw ages back whilst out riding on the local bike paths. A little girl, couldn't have been more than five years old, was riding her bike, complete with barbie-doll pink paint, streamers, handlebar basket and training wheels. Mum and dad were behind her (a metre or so), making sure she was riding safely. I was approaching them from in front (ie they were travelling in the opposite direction). She rang her bell, and.. this bit is priceless.. as she rang it, she yelled out "This means I'm here! This means get out of my way!!!!!!" I didn't know whether to or . In the end, I went for .

Max

[kukamunga]

Wait till she gets behind the wheel of an automobile.....

[SeanB]

I ordered an 'incredibell' for my road bike last week. My bike just runs so smooth that no one hears me approaching.

[Spork!]

Without getting too specific with road rules and bylaws, I think one of the most important ones is to avoid collisions no matter what the other road user is doing. Bearing that in mind I'd say the guy who whizzed past the OP was negligent, in that he failed to observe and anticipate the situation. Regardless of if I was cycling or driving, if I see the person ahead do a head check, and see that their lane is obstructed, I'd be expecting them to change lanes to get past the obstacle. Squeezing past them in this situation is plain stupid IMO.

OP - in future I suggest you use hand signals, whether you think there is anyone to see it or not. If I was the lycra clad weenie zooming past your 100+kg I would give you some room, even if it was only to prevent myself from being clotheslined...

[SeanB]

I ordered an 'incredibell' for my road bike last week. My bike just runs so smooth that no one hears me approaching.

ah nuts! it doesn't fit my bike.

[hartleymartin]

I've owned a few different bells. My two favourites are 1.) the Huge ding-dong bell - the same type that Pashley supplies on their bicycles. and 2.) the bell on my Raleigh Twenty - it's very old, probably original, and gives a real rrrrrrrring ring sound. It has a friendly sound that I find pedestrians respond to well. The Honka-Hooters mounted on handlebars are also quite effective, as pedestrians are not expecting that sound and are more likely to look around to see what it is. And of course, I've said it before:

I like big bells and I cannot lie.

[Nobody]

I've owned a few different bells. My two favourites are 1.) the Huge ding-dong bell...

+1

To spam this thread again, here are some more pics of my favourite bells:

Electra Ding Dong


Japanese Universal Sound Bell


Below I mounted mine onto an existing stem spacer.

[kukamunga]

Forget about bells!

WhoWhyWhenWhereWhat are those gear shift lever mounts?

[Nobody]

Forget about bells!

WhoWhyWhenWhereWhat are those gear shift lever mounts?

http://www.kellybike.com/2nd_xtra_takeoff.html
http://cgi.ebay.com.au/KELLY-TAKE-OFF-P ... 4cebf44f1e

In regard to your earlier comment in another thread about Crane Creek and Tektro V brake levers being the same, if you look on the back of the Cane Creek V brake lever handle it has RL520 stamped on it. (The half price Tektro model for those who don't know what I'm talking about.)

http://road.cc/content/review/12339-tek ... rop-levers