[/realist] in vicMulger bill wrote:Not gonna happen until some genius works out a way of automating the process then all of a sudden iPeds will be "the main source of pedestrian and cyclist trauma" on our roads and paths[/cynic]
open topic, for anything cycling related.
[/realist] in vic
How do you plan to cope with your alcohol-interlock device?
Sick of the speed/red light/0.05 bleaters. There's an easy way to stay clear of penaltyies - stay within cooee of the law.
Riding bikes in traffic - what seems dangerous is usually safe; what seems safe is often more dangerous.
Pity about the people that don't indicate, surf the web/read, hold a consistent line or head check before changing lanes. They must be perfectly safe because they aren't drunk or fast
Technology is no substitute for a regular, visible presence. (Red lights excepted)
...whatever the road rules, self-preservation is the absolute priority for a cyclist when mixing it with motorised traffic.
London Boy 29/12/2011
Now fair go - did I say any of that??
I was just saying that I am not bothered by Police enforcing various road rules (speed, red light and 0.05 are pretty well acknowledged as some major causes of road deaths). I manage to stay reasonably well within the law when driving. Lots who bleat about these enforcements in the media and elsewhere are not cyclists, but drivers who hate all the fines they are getting, or the fact they have to drive a bit more responsibly to avoid them. In the late 80s and early 90s the introduction of stricter BAC testing and widespread use of speed & red-light cameras were a major change that noticeably slowed driving speeds - all of a sudden instead of having most drivers passing me (even at 5kmh over the limit) I now found I was suddenly passing everyone else. For cyclists and pedestrians this was a huge benefit, as shown in lowered death and serious injury rates.
Far more significant than the enforcement of that other well known 1990 rule
Other bad habits and behaviour? Sure get the police to enforce it. Making speed and red-light infringements easier to enforce with cameras gives them more time for all other policing. Of course then they go and try to put them on all train stations so now their time is tied up there .
Riding bikes in traffic - what seems dangerous is usually safe; what seems safe is often more dangerous.
Here is a new version of the Mirrycle Incredibell that I had not seen before - compatible with virtually any modern road bike.
Or if you want it closer to the hoods there is also this one.
My, that's a very cute idea.. Won't fit the quill on my commute but still nice
By continuing to stay off the grog or only drink in moderation and not drive on the odd occaision I do drink.
My job has taught me to dislike intoxicated people
3km/h is the margin for error in Vic. 3km/h in a 110km/h zone.
My objection is that it is more about revenue than safety with that margin for error.
I would argue that cameras have actually made it more dangerous for M/cyclists in the city.
It is far safer for a M/cyclist to move ahead of the traffic rather than prop in the middle of it and have numpties change lanes on top of you. Impossible to do that now without contributing heavily to the states tax revenue. One of the reasons I no longer ride a M/cycle.
Not much use if you don't ride on PSP's. Which is what the thread is about I know. I do find it hard to stay OT
Might go for one of these if they aren't too expensive if and when they come on the market
I found that after like 35 years (from kid to now) that i had never, even needed to have a bell. Sure the Hobart cycleway could get a bit tight at times, but it wasnt really a problem (so long as stupid people didn't mind that I mowed down their kids, or them, even thought I's slow to 5km/h), but last year living in brsbane for a year, with all the daft people on the shared paths, and I mean all of them, I used those paths as a cyclist, runner and walker all around brisbane and southbank all the time, I went out and got a bell for each bike pretty quick... and found it did absolutely nothing. Ringing the bell cause people to:
-not hear it at all, even for 2-3 rings as you got real close
-scared the heck out of them so they jumped in your way
-heard it, looked around at you, then they continued on their merry way taking up most of the path
the few that actually took notice you didn't actually need the bell as they were using the path properly in the first place. And seriously the kids were better than the parents, telling them to get out of the way.
Also I didn't use the bell as "ding ding, get out of the way" but as "Hey cyclist here, I'm going past so be aware, but i'm slowing right down" type of way.
In the end I jsut gave up as it was pretty pointless and I just rode real slow, which was frustrating but I'd rather that than hit someone.
Back in tassie, it no bell and no problems
Look 675, Cervelo R3, GT Xizang, GT Zaskar
Well, lucky for you.
I remain unconvinced that your stupid people don't mind
A bit unkind I thought...
When I was in Tassie a local friend said "peds here will always see you, as one head is always looking backwards"
Well anyway I never hit one. Could never understand what he meant , though.
Ringing your bell is not really for your benefit. It's to let pedestrians know you're coming so they don't get a fright.
I was overtaken by a cyclist the other week who used his bell... except he only rang it when he was RIGHT next to my shoulder, and continued ringing it three or four times after he went past. I was wondering what his problem was, but then he did the same thing to the three pedestrians he subsequently passed. I'm guessing he indicates after changing lanes too.
Gave me a nice burst of adrenaline being scared like that. Much appreciated.
Yes I think a lot of the people who are complaining about pedestrians reacting badly to the bell and jumping out in front of them are just not ringing early enough. The suggestion from several state guides is to start sounding the bell from at least 30 metres back. Go outside and pace out 30 metres (this will be around 40 good strides for an average person) and just see how far it is. Go on! It's a long way!
I reckon 30 metres is too far. 15 - 20 is more like it. Depends a lot on closing speed, of course. Personal thought is that the resonating sound of the bell is lost at 30 metres and unless it is a really quiet place, becomes part of the background noise.
Too heavy to climb, too old to sprint.
Roger Ramjet: 2009 Giant CRX3
Lady Penelope: 2011 Avanti Cadent 1.0 TdF
I'd agree with gorilla monsoon. 30m is too far away - you'd need a real gong of a bell or an airzound to be heard by a chattering pedestrian at that distance. I ring first at about 20m and then again at 5-10m away
I disagree. Sometimes I ding from 40m and they still hear me. Two sharp loud clear dings, DING DING, they're audible from a long way away.
I wish I had a video camera
At 25kmph you're doing 7 metres per second. 2.8 seconds or 1 second isn't long enough.
That is the thing I was focusing on.... sometimes OK, but I'd prefer to allow all pedestrians to hear it - on a windy day, when they're chatting/distracted, even when they're using an ipod. Just my opinion and experience, but at 20m in almost any situation a pedestrian will hear it, with enough time to act and not be too surprised.
BTW, I generally don't ride at 25kmh when passing pedestrians, generally 20kmh, and slower if there is any uncertainty.
in a post of a short while ago i offered observations and actions which are contrarian to what appears to be the prevailing attitude- which is to ring the bell. i posted that not to try to change people's opinions and attitudes, but to offer an approach which works very successfully for me, and has over my 37 years or so of adult-aged recreational and commuting cycling (my forum name is an ugly acronym for "getting older but still enjoying cycling".)
and this post is still to not necessarily to try to change others' attitudes, which even though different from mine have no doubt been developed over long periods of cycling in just as thoughtful manner. however, there is a place for suggesting we should all think very carefully about that we are doing. not everyone appears to do so, and falling back on mantra is not an appropriate substitute for thinking carefully about every interaction that occurs on the shared path. accordingly i believe there are some additional comments that should be made.
some find it hard to believe that pedestrians are not startled by a rider overtaking them without ringing. my experience shows that in the great majority of cases i don't startle pedestrians. i put that down to a couple of inter-related factors: the speed at which i overtake them and the separation distance. there is a simple rule here: the closer i need to pass by the pedestrian the slower i will go; by corollary the greater the separation distance the faster i can travel. can i quantify that relationship? no, it simply comes from experience.
by contrast, i see many bell-ringing riders pass far too close to pedestrians. that action would appear to stem from the belief that because they have rung their bells that is sufficient warning for the pedestrian, who now knows there is a cycle approaching from behind, and therefore will be expecting one to pass very soon. however, expectation is not the same as comfort. am i comfortable with a car overtaking me far too close just because they have sounded their horn? clearly not, yet many expect pedestrians to be so with cyclists.
by comparison my approach is based on courtesy for the pedestrian, maximising the passing distance at all times, and setting my speed appropriate for that distance.
there have been discussions about when to start ringing a bell. some put it 30 metres behind, others closer. there is a critical issue here: how often does one ring the bell? is it once, or a couple of times, or do you ring until you have acknowledgement from the pedestrian? one ring can be unobtrusive but appreciated- but there are caveats to that, see below- two can be a little annoying, and any more becomes intrusive and unnecessary. i see many cyclists ringing their bells-even at pedestrians who are walking in exactly the right place on the path- until acknowledgement is received. that is extremely rude of the cyclist and is a belligerent intrusion into the personal space of the pedestrian. it is saying "i don't care what you think, i am demanding your attention!". why do cyclists do that? because they simply aren't thinking carefully enough about what they are doing- perhaps too influenced by the prepoderance of mantra advocating the ringing of bells?
peak hour on the gardiners creek/ main yarra trails is a cycling advocate's dream: probably a cyclist every ten metres or so. what does that mean for a pedestrian walking, for example, from east richmond to the city? in the half hour or so that it might take them to walk the three kilometres or so they could be overtaken by several hundred cyclists. is it appropriate that they be subjected to ringing of bells every 2 seconds or so? i don't think anyone would say so. what happens in practice? some ring bells, some don't. in other words, people are starting to think about the appropriateness of ringing their bell. what i find strange is that many do not extend that thoughtfulness to other circumstances.
to ring or not ring: as long as you have thought about each situation carefully, and your actions are safe and courteous to other users of the shared paths- isn't that the real issue?
+50,000 billion times.
I make a conscious decision about whether or not to ring my bell in every interaction. I judge the the odds of an unpredictable response with bell (usually about 1 in 10 where I ride) and without bell (which varies according to the situation). Factors that I might consider include the frequency of cyclists on that path, width of the path, sight lines, oncoming traffic, presence of kids, dogs, walking behaviour, speed differential, congestion etc etc.
Classic example I saw the other day, cyclist comes up behind a pedestrian while both are entering a tunnel. Cyclist can't pass because of oncoming traffic, but still pings away. Poor pedestrian looks very confused and a bit frightened. They know the cyclist can't safely pass them and feel they are being told to get out of the way, but have nowhere to go. In this instance the bell ringing was inappropriate. Slowing to walking pace behind the pedestrian, followed by friendly "good morning, looks like I can get by now" once the traffic had cleared would have been safer and more courteous. I see plenty of bell-ringing used as a substitute for safe and courteous riding behaviour (not suggesting anyone here does though).
gobsec you make more sense than anyone
but what a shame we can't ask some pedestrians for their opinion
hey maybe we can - what would you like cyclists to do when YOU'RE walking with your family on a shared path?
Who is online