In order for e.g. a horn to work you need enough time that the driver processes the situation and decides the horn will communicate something AND enough time for the pedestrian or whatever to process that and react to it. Generally it's a lot easier just to press the brake, and more importantly be travelling at a speed and in a manner where the brake is sufficient.
Structurally, we'd be much better off reducing conflicts between the different tiers of users. I.e. properly segregated infrastructure for each class of vehicle.
A horn or bell is mostly for telling other people "hey I'm here, stay out of my way and dont suddenly cross into my path"
My opinion as a cyclist is that I should basically only be using my bell on pedestrians when the pedestrians are wandering onto the bike lane. If im cycling through a shared space, I find it extremely rude to ring the bell, because it feels like I'm telling people to get out of my way, but they have just as much right to a shared path as I do. Some cyclists ring their bells because they're worried a pedestrian might suddenly turn into their path, but I think if one is concerned about that, it's a sign youre cycling too fast, and should just slow down.
With cars, I will sometimes proactively ring my bell at them if I think they're not sufficiently aware enough of me though.
> If im cycling through a shared space, I find it extremely rude to ring the bell, because it feels like I'm telling people to get out of my way, but they have just as much right to a shared path as I do.
It’s certainly rude to ring the bell in a aggressive manner, but many bells are capable of producing much softer, more polite sounds.
In super busy old European capitals I find that people increasingly just ride around with speakers playing a constant tune at a reasonable volume, a massive improvement on dense streets full of varyingly sober people.
I think bells do have a communication use of course, just not really to be used as an emergency 'an accident is about to happen, immediately take action'.
At least a bell sounds relatively polite if you're not spamming it. A horn is a bit aggressive, you have to modulate it.
In a car I use two short tapped toots as a polite kind of 'excuse me' e.g. if someone hasn't noticed a light turning green. That seems more friendly than a sustained blast.
On the bike with a bell I'll just say thank you as I pass, if they've moved for me. Usually seems to go down well enough.
> If im cycling through a shared space, I find it extremely rude to ring the bell, because it feels like I'm telling people to get out of my way, but they have just as much right to a shared path as I do
Older folks on e-bikes love to do this. I highly suspect that they are unable to hold their heavy e-bikes upright on lower speeds, so they have to aggressively plow through pedestrians.
> With cars, I will sometimes proactively ring my bell at them if I think they're not sufficiently aware enough of me though.
There's only a few types of car that will be "aware" of cyclists and I don't think ringing a bell will help their algorithms. Getting the attention of a driver, meanwhile, is difficult with a bell as often they'll be in a semi-soundproof cage with loud music on. (Also deaf drivers are a thing).
I've never really considered using a bell for motorised traffic. I did once buy a loud air-horn, but it was so loud and abrasive that I never used it as it seemed really rude.
Bicycle bells are mostly for warning pedestrians when approaching from behind and passing on shared-use trails. I ride on shared infrastructure and cannot afford to build new infrastructure when my town will not. Not warning a pedestrian when approaching from behind introduces the possibility of collision if the pedestrian makes a sudden change in his walking course. I typically use this etiquette:
Passing a single pedestrian or runner on a quiet day: no bell, coasting for a short bit with a loud free hub (the rotating ratchet element on the rear wheel) alerts the pedestrian to my presence.
Passing a runner: normal ring from a distance so they have knowledge that the bicycle is passing
Passing a cyclist: one loud ring from a distance
Passing a pedestrian walking a dog: two loud rings, one far, one close, so that the pedestrian is aware of the approaching bicycle and he can prevent his dog from running at me/colliding. Many dogs do seem to enjoy a bicycle chase.
Antisocial pedestrians (i.e., walking side-by-side such as to be blocking the path in both directions, preventing the bicyclist from passing): several loud rings of the bell until the antisocial activity has abated. Announcements in my local tongue (not English) that they impede the flow of traffic.
Right it has a wider non-emergency comms purpose, I do this too. But I wouldn't do it and assume they've heard or understood, and so overtake too fast on that assumption. The overtake should be safe regardless.
> Generally it's a lot easier just to press the brake
Maybe easier, but it hardly seems fair, nor realistic.
With a bit of experience, you can tell when pedestrians are likely to stumble onto the bike lane without looking. Then you have two choices: Significantly reduce your speed, or ring your bell first and only reduce speed if they still haven't noticed the oncoming bike.
If you only reduce speed, you'll be traveling at a very low average speed, and time is money (especially for bike delivery workers, but I also hate having to sharply decelerate for people glued to their screen or otherwise completely unaware of their surroundings even if I'm not in a rush), so you can take a guess as to whether "just reducing your speed" is practicable.
> If you only reduce speed, you'll be traveling at a very low average speed, and time is money
Well this is a bit of an appeal to consequences. I would say (a) this is a very good reason to build dedicated infra, and (b) if something ever does happen, a court is really not going to take this line of reasoning very well, so be careful with it... even if in practice it's how you consider it.
I'm completely in favor of building dedicated infrastructure, but I can't do that by myself. (Also, how do you prevent pedestrians from crossing said dedicated infrastructure without looking? Should it be fenced off? But I agree that there are better and worse implementations of dedicated bike lanes.)
What would you suggest cyclists do until that happens? Never go faster than walking speed? Then I can leave my bike at home. Cycle on the road, where cars can hit me, instead of the dedicated bike lane, use of which is often mandatory?
> a court is really not going to take this line of reasoning very well
A court will rule in favor of the pedestrian stepping onto a bike lane without looking getting hit by a bike that's too close to do anything?
> What would you suggest cyclists do until that happens? Never go faster than walking speed? Then I can leave my bike at home. Cycle on the road, where cars can hit me, instead of the dedicated bike lane, use of which is often mandatory?
I don't know where you live but it's quite unusual here to be cycling through areas that have a lot of pedestrians. If the bike lane is a dedicated one, pedestrians are very rarely in it. But yes if all else fails, the road is preferable to the pavement if you're unwilling to cycle slowly enough.
> how do you prevent pedestrians from crossing said dedicated infrastructure without looking?
That's a UX problem. You can also ask how to prevent cars driving on the cycle lane. Which we do in a multitude of ways. You just need to physically communicate segregation and danger.
> A court will rule in favor of the pedestrian stepping onto a bike lane without looking getting hit by a bike that's too close to do anything?
Here, absolutely, if they consider the cyclist is going too fast for the conditions. There's a concept of a hierarchy whereby the more vulnerable class is almost assumed not to be at fault. Same for a car hitting a cyclist, or a motorbike, even.
> If the bike lane is a dedicated one, pedestrians are very rarely in it.
Pedestrians step onto the dedicated bike lane I use to commute on average at least once per way for me.
> But yes if all else fails, the road is preferable to the pavement if you're unwilling to cycle slowly enough.
Of course I'm taking the road if there's no dedicated bike lane. Cycling faster than walking speed on the sidewalk seems reckless to me.
> That's a UX problem. You can also ask how to prevent cars driving on the cycle lane. Which we do in a multitude of ways. You just need to physically communicate segregation.
Yes, but I can only use the bike lane that already exists. Of course I prefer the ones with better UX.
> There's a concept of a hierarchy whereby the more vulnerable class is almost assumed not to be at fault.
Not where I live. You are allowed to e.g. trust adult pedestrians without any visible signs of impairment to not randomly step into the road. Otherwise, driving cars next to sidewalks or crossing intersections would only be possible at walking speed as well.
Of course, if you already see somebody approaching the road, somebody walking unsteadily, visibly intoxicated etc. you are obliged to still brake. The question here is whether visible noise-cancelling headphones would be considered a similar visible impairment, I suppose.
Personally, I just always assume I haven't been noticed, because ultimately I don't want to run somebody over even if I would be legally in the clear. That's a different story, though.
I get your point about not wanting to reduce speed, but it's worth considering how the law might react in a worse-case scenario.
Here in the UK, there was an infamous case of Charlie Alliston who ended up getting a ridiculous 18 months prison sentence after colliding with a pedestrian who hit her head and subsequently died. He was riding a "fixie" without a front brake and was cycling at around 18mph through some green traffic lights. The pedestrian was crossing the road further on (i.e. not at a junction which is fairly normal) and wasn't paying enough attention, so Charlie shouted at her to get out of his way. He started to reduce speed (rear brake only), but then decided that he could just aim for the gap behind her, but she then reacted to his shouting by stepping backwards into his path.
The point is that the judge awarded such a tough sentence partly due to Charlie not taking all available actions to avoid a collision and also because his bike was illegal to use on the road due to having just one brake. So, if you rely on a bell to clear your path, you could be held liable if they don't respond and you collide.
To be clear, I am still reducing my speed if I don't get positive confirmation that I've been noticed or if there's not enough time for a reaction to even happen.
My bell just gives me the significant improvement of possibly getting a reaction from the pedestrian long before I need to start braking.
However, not everybody does cycle like that. And while legally and ethically dubious, the bell still helps in that case as well.
I concur. Even the best bell in the world may be utterly useless if the pedestrian happens to be deaf. Also, bicycle bells tend to polarise pedestrians - some people think that bells are rude and insisting that peds get out of the way and other people think it's dangerous and rude to not use a bell every time you overtake.
My solution is to still have a tiny bell on my road bike, but instead of using it, call out something like "can I get past, please?" or if an immediate response is required (e.g. ped blindly stepping into the road ahead of me) then yelling "Oi!" can really surprise them and make them notice you. I'm also a fan of using "Beep, beep" if a ped is on cycle infrastructure (active travel infrastructure is probably a better term) and I want to pretend that I'm an impatient driver.
I think the human voice is far superior to a bell as you can tailor the message for the situation and you don't have to move a hand away from the brakes to do so. (Using your voice is also a very good idea when approaching a horse and rider - horses know about humans and don't get freaked out if you call ahead "Morning!" or something cheery and appropriate).
I realised after a few near misses that my voice is by far the lowest latency signal method I have. If a situation suddenly seems dangerous I'll yell. Perhaps not very polite, but far more polite than hitting someone who stepped out in front of me. A bike bell probably adds a second of latency to find the bell. I'd rather use that time to brake.
The bell can be useful as a more general "I'm here" warning. But if there's any actual risk of a collision, yelling and braking are far more effective.
I think it's time for some sort of a safety standard for a sound frequency to be reserved exclusively for alarm/alert use and that ANC systems have to let through.
It goes without saying, use of said frequency should be prohibited for other purposes, especially marketing.
as soon they do that all kind of companies will start abusing it, for example the sound of all smart phone notification will use exactly that frequency
I think this is a really bad idea unless paired with some regime that penalizes inappropiate use of alarms - and most societies don't treat noise pollution as a real problem. For example, people honk all the time even when there are no safety issues. Or have misconfigured home/car alarms. Outlawing using ANC for blocking "fake alarms" only makes the problem worse.
Regular alarm sounds already do that, because above 1kHz or so it's the cushioning in the device that does the majority of the cancelling. There's a dip in effectiveness before that because to cancel noise effectively it's best to have a latency lower than a quarter of the wave's period.
Also ANC works best on wide-spectrum sounds, so any kind of siren or the cries of a child will go through, as the spectrum is a series of narrow peaks.
Seems to be some misunderstanding of what bike bells are for here...
A bell is helpful in a situation where a pedestrian is not aware of an approaching bike. The bell informs the pedestrian of two things:
1. That there is an approaching bike.
2. Roughly were the bike is approaching from.
The hope is that the pedestrian will then behave in a predictable way to allow a safe pass by the bike. In almost all cases the pedestrian will be able to simply continue doing what they were doing before they heard the bell.
If a pedestrian can not hear bike bells, for whatever reason, that is not a problem. They can just stay consistent with the centreline of the path/road/way. They then have a responsibility to shoulder check when shifting from side to side.
The presentation looks like marketing overkill, their solution looks pretty simple. It‘s just two trills „Trillerwerk“ bells combined. It was the standard in Germany until the late 1990s https://youtu.be/-mW7dWHDivo
What's your easy technical solution to improve common sense, then? Or is it the all time classic of "just improving society"? I'm all ears for your ideas.
I do that. This was never a problem, as the ANC ones I used don't cancel every sound the same way.
For example, I can go into datacenter and it will cancel all the datacenter noise(aside for when air blows directly into mic, it overdrives it) but I can still hear what other person is saying.
Also I used them to generally listen to podcast so there was no wall of music to go thru, so sirens and such were easily discernable
Yes, but I would consider it somewhat rude to use the bell in a space where both bikes and pedestrians are allowed. If it would be required to be used regularly, I'd say the path is badly designed.
I used to commute to work by bike in ~1M city in Europe, mostly on dedicated bike lanes, but some shared, and had just the smallest, barely audible bell, only because it was required by law. I don't remember using it much at all. I don't know what the problem is. Maybe the Londoners should take a good look at themselves.
I agree that on a footpath pedestrians should be treated as having priority.
A semi-common way I use my bell: when on a shared footpath with plenty of space to take over, I often use my bell when I'm still ten meters away, so that I don't give pedestrians are heart attack by suddenly dashing right past them.
(I have a nice ding dong bell. They don't seem to mind. It also helps that I often have a cheerful five year old in the back.)
People shouldn't really be walking around in public with ANC on. It's not safe. Not a simple problem to solve except maybe to inform people better upon buying/setting up ANC-enabled devices.
or cyclists should have their own lanes, pedestrians shouldn't walk on them - and vice versa. and if you're stuck behind someone slow just overtake them when you can.
Safe or not - it is up to individual to decide if it is worth the risk.
The sense of entitlement of cyclists knows no bounds. If cars are liable for running over cyclists then cyclists must be liable for running over pedestrians.
I used to live in a city where I would walk everywhere but I had the constant fear of cyclists running over me because they would drive all over the pavements without any regard for pedestrians. Imagine walking and having to look around all the time. I find it amusing how people in websites like this one talk about how we have to be very afraid of cars when the true terror, at least for me, were cyclists.
And when you must walk with your small dog on a section of road where suddenly high speed e-cyclists zoom past you, now that's constant terror. At times you really get killer ideas.
That would never work. Have you never been mindlessly walking and stepped on a bike way without realizing? Cities are for people after all. There's also so many places where bikes and pedestrians share the way, like roads under construction, and shared streets. We need to stop thinking of cities as these perfect automated places where humans are not welcome.
The stupidity that makes depriving one of your senses seem like a sensible thing to do in a busy chaotic environment.
I don’t actually mind people doing that though. What is annoying is the entitled attitude that there should be no consequence for that choice, and everyone else should orbit/compensate around their lack of situational awareness.
Generally I am pretty accommodating of pedestrians and give them a wide berth but sometimes they do some pretty obnoxious things like walk six abreast or cut right in front of you erratically without looking.
I have very little time for people who freely absolve themselves of their personal responsibility to be aware of their surroundings and we shouldn't be encouraging people to zone out of society just so they can consume more.
I am comfortable cycling slower than walking pace and if I am in a real rush for speed I will cycle on the road but sometimes pedestrians can cause serious cycling accidents even when you're careful or slow.
> Why can't the cyclists slow down when they see that there's a human obstacle in front of them?
They usually do. (The considerate and/or non-confrontational ones. There are always idiots, and people have the tendency to remember negative outliers and project their behavior on the group as a whole, which is unfortunate.) However, slowing down isn't the whole story. Riding a non-motorized bicycle is much easier if the rider can keep moving, however slowly, so it would be considerate in turn for the pedestrian to step aside and let the cyclist pass, if possible. A distracted pedestrian can be warned by a bell.
Separately, delivery riders as a category have an incentive to ride as quickly as possible, which is a recipe for conflict. Removing that incentive means removing or completely reimagining the service. I don't think that anybody has a solution or mitigation at present.
In the roads near my office (central London), which are seldom used by cars, several pedestrians at a time very often walk down the road or diagonally cross the road head in phone. You can get very close and the still don’t notice (the slower you are, the quieter you become so even less likely to hear you).
I’m not sure arguing against a bell is helpful - people need to look on any road, especially with the advent of quiet electric cars.
Sure is helpful, because it goes like this: pedestrians first -> then cyclists -> then motorists.
You may notice that in this worldview (one which I find very hard to argue against) cyclists should give priority to pedestrians, no questions asked. I don't care about fancy bells or whatever, no-one takes those into consideration even when we (us, pedestrians, that is) can hear them because, and I repeat, cyclists are not as important as pedestrians are.
Where I live, generally if you're allowed to use a road or a lane, you have equal rights to others using it. On a road, cyclists have equal rights to motorists; on shared lanes, pedestrians don't have special rights and are expected to walk near the edge.
Your worldview (mostly) applies to pedestrian crossings but that's the extent of it.
You may not care about fancy bells but you will care about loud honking close to your ears in my very recent experience from the streets of Shanghai. You don't have absolute priority just because you are a pedestrian.
> Why can't the cyclists slow down when they see that there's a human obstacle in front of them?
Because if the space is limited and they actually want to get somewhere, they just don't have time for that? And slowing down often means stopping and causing a traffic jam.
Note that I mostly agree with what you wrote (and I give priority to pedestrians when I'm riding my bike) but there are different situations that have to be taken into account.
There are often a LOT of human obstacles, and we have places to be! I slow down a bit but I don’t have a lot of patience for total unawareness. I don’t find this to be an issue with riding in the city because I ride on the road or in bike lanes. But when I go trail riding, it’s very annoying when people take up the trail and do not hear or react to my bell. Sometimes the situation is such that it is difficult to stop or evade the person, such as during a technical descent. If you’re out on the woods, there is really no excuse not to be aware of your surroundings.
I've lost count of the times I've been riding at walking pace behind someone, on a shared path, waiting to get past because they're completely oblivious to the bell ringing, politely asking, or even flashing lights.
The real problem is that cyclists and pedestrians apparently in some countries share space commonly enough that this is necessary?
In the Netherlands, bicycle utopia, I cannot remember the last time I used my bell to alert a pedestrian of my existence. Granted, I never cycle in Amsterdam, but that is a special location where high-powered ship horns are probably required.
Regarding ANC, I naturally turn it off while cycling on my Bose Quiet Comfort II, as the ANC will try (and fail) to cancel the noise from the wind. I don't think this is a solved problem? So for bicycle-to-bicycle alerting, this also seems overkill.
Yes, company Škoda is from Czech Republic where we have shared-use paths for cyclists and pedestrians. It is not "necessary". You should not be wearing noise canceling headphones while being in traffic - it makes you more liable in case of accidents.
This could serve as the blueprint I guess, skip to the part about the 70s and 80s protests. Collective and popular protests helped by an oil crisis, recognizing vested interests in other modes of transportation (cars) that might want to work against your efforts.
I don't know why, but sometimes this is done intentionally.
In my (Dutch) city, there is this infuriating piece of road where the bicycle path suddenly gets routed onto the kerb, intentionally mixing bikes and pedestrians. I believe the theory is that bikes will go slower so pedestrians don't need to worry about crossing the road as much or something.
Predictably, lots bikes are taken by surprise, either brake hard and suddenly or fly through pedestrians (who the biker thinks are in their bike lane, because they would be two meters earlier).
In my experience, when bikes and pedestrians meet, one of the two groups is in the wrong place and should be watching out/slowing down and waiting.
The example video shows various instances of pedestrians walking in bike lanes (and seemingly being surprised at the sudden appearance of a bike there). You can't fix stupid, but at least you can tell them to get off the bike path.
I wish my city only had a single case like that. Unfortunately, in Tallinn, it is extremely common that a bike path is suddenly routed onto the curb, and that's when you're lucky. For some paths, the path just... ends, and you suddenly find yourself right in the middle of car traffic. Unfortunately, the city leadership is anti-bike and pro-car, and it shows in the infrastructure.
Paths where pedestrians and bikers (and other light transportation vehicles) are mixed are overwhelmingly common.
> In my (Dutch) city, there is this infuriating piece of road where the bicycle path suddenly gets routed onto the kerb, intentionally mixing bikes and pedestrians. I believe the theory is that bikes will go slower so pedestrians don't need to worry about crossing the road as much or something.
That is an unfortunate, probably experimental?, traffic design choice...
I dislike the smug condescending tone of your comment. Not everyone lives in the "cycle utopia" Netherlands. For some of those that don't live there, this could be a game changer and life saver since its easier to buy a bell than wait for your city to build you segregated cycle lanes.
Personally, I see no use for this bell since in Austria bicycles share the road space with cars, trucks and trams rather than pedestrians, which could be more dangerous, and what I would need is a bicycle bell that could penetrate car enclosures so that drivers would get off their phones and pay attention to the stuff around them.
Yes, I know, ideally there should be dedicated cycle lanes only for bicycles but nothing in life is ever ideal, and the city isn't gonna do that anytime soon since that would mean completely eliminating car traffic on the narrow streets, witch would be political suicide, so a bell would be an instant life saver.
I don't mean to disagree that there are situations where this is useful. I'm just trying to offer the perspective from a situation where the root cause as I see it has been fixed (to a high degree).
The OP seemed to suggest that people wearing ANC headgear should stop doing so, but both the bell and the ANC-wearing pedestrians are a non-issue in my lived experience.
It would be a shame if these "cyclist-pedestrian ANC-wars" distract from the real issue, that cyclists are not, but should be, a fully emancipated participant in traffic and infrastructure should be designed with cars (to a degree), bicyclists AND pedestrians in mind.
These things take both time and massive political will.
As somebody living in a city that's quite bike friendly, all things concerned, but still not close to Dutch or Danish levels of biking safety, I'll take any "technical solutions that try to solve social/political problems" I can get to make my commute safer.
Also, anything that makes biking feel safer will make more people try commuting by bike, which in turn increases the political will to change traffic laws and space use. Nothing exists in a vacuum.
> I'm just trying to offer the perspective from a situation where the root cause as I see it has been fixed (to a high degree).
Your argument was not a solution. You just said, "NL fixd this, why haven't other countries?" which doesn't add any value.
Have you considered that other cities/countries can't just add infrastructure that hasn't been designed from the start to accommodate bikes the same way NL has without taking space away from pedestrians or cars as the roads have stayed as narrow as back in the 1800s?
And that fixing it is not a switch you can just turn on on a whim, but requires decades of political and societal change around repurposing infrastructure, plus capital, before consensus is achieved? Democracies are complicated, even moreson in times like these.
What do you do until then, when a bell is an instant improvement?
You're commenting off the sidelines without realizing why most countries can't flip a switch and become NL overnight.
>It would be a shame if these "cyclist-pedestrian ANC-wars" distract from the real issue, that cyclists are not, but should be, a fully emancipated participant in traffic and infrastructure should be designed with cars (to a degree), bicyclists AND pedestrians in mind.
Yeah but what do you do if they are? There's no ANC wars here, Skoda just made a better bell. Are you also against the development of better bicycle helmets, because where you live you don't need them? Like yes sure, infrastructure is the real solution, but what do you do until that arrives?
I was not trying to offer a solution, as this will be highly specific to the situation in your locality and pretty pointless for me to spend time on. I am merely identifying this as a root cause, which for some reason strikes a nerve.
Why does Skoda, a car manufacturer, care so much about interactions between cyclists and pedestrians? As you say, a bell that penetrates the car enclosures would be much more useful. I suspect a similar reason why pro-safety helmet lobby groups in NL received a lot of funding from these same car manufacturers. I digress..
For your information, post-WWII infrastructure developments in NL were initially highly car-friendly. This only started to change in the 70s and 80s, when the government started to actually create bicycle-related traffic policy, after collective protests (e.g. popular pro-bicycle protest songs were written, children refused to go to schools unless bicycle paths were laid, etc.) also helped by the oil crisis of the time.
So, no it can't be fixed overnight, but it can be fixed in reasonable time (and not an unspecified amount of decades, political capital and funding). We are even living through a repeated history right now.
Draw a line, say this is for bicycles, pedestrians and cars have no business here, and bikes have no business being on any other lane as long as these exist.
When bikes have to go through areas where people walk freely, they need to limit their speed to a walking pace.
People should not wear headphones (noise-cancelling or not) when going through traffic as pedestrians. Take them off when crossing!
People should not hear loud music when driving - max is normal speaking voice level. Bike drivers should never hear any music, let alone wearing headphones. Behind-ear speakers on low could be a compromise.
> Draw a line, say this is for bicycles, pedestrians and cars have no business here, and bikes have no business being on any other lane as long as these exist.
This is the reality in many cities, if it weren't for the hopefully not surprising fact that people don't always obey traffic laws perfectly.
Unfortunately, the UK seems almost incapable of building usable cycle infrastructure (possibly excepting London). Your idea is just a recipe for magic protective paint and even more abuse of cyclists who don't want to be forced to use ridiculously badly designed infrastructure. e.g. Here in Bristol, we have an infamous shared cycle/pedestrian pavement along Coronation Rd that has a few trees completely blocking the cycle side which just means conflict between pedestrians and cyclists who have to fight over the scraps left over from motorists taking most of the space (https://www.google.com/maps/@51.4462522,-2.6064792,3a,75y,80...).
How do we enforce seatbelts? (1) Assume the public aren't stupid. (2) Assume the public aren't murderers. (3) Explain the risk-benefit analysis through informative videos like https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Julie_(1998_film).
People can shout "domestic terror" all they like, but if it's not true, it's not true.
Wearing a seatbelt cost next to nothing in inconvenience. Not being able to listen to music or have phone calls with noise cancellation while walking does not really compare.
Of course this requires compensating for the loss in awareness through hearing by looking more diligently before crossing a bike lane, but unfortunately, some people never learn this, or only through a few close calls.
"Annoyingly" ringing a bell and converting a potential accident into a close call seems pretty close to optimal to me.
"Next to nothing in inconvenience" is the perception now. It certainly wasn't the perception when seatbelts were introduced. The ability to listen to personal music while walking is less than 50 years old: before that, you had the radio or nothing. Even that would not be an intolerable inconvenience for most. But I was more thinking:
> People should not hear loud music when driving - max is normal speaking voice level.
which feels like a more than acceptable constraint to me.
You are answering different question. What you are saying is called awareness campaign or something. Enforcement of seatbelts is done by police with fines/tickets and is possible cause it's visible from outside.
Other things like loudness levels inside cars cannot be monitored without going in full totalitarian mode.
Why would enforcement be necessary, given assumptions 1 and 2 (not stupid, not murderers), and awareness? Around these parts, seatbelt enforcement isn't necessary because everyone voluntarily wears their seatbelt – except for children, occasionally, but the adults are generally capable of enforcing that. (Even teenagers / young adults being irresponsible in cars generally wear seatbelts while doing so.)
If "shouldn't" worked we'd have no industrial accidents without any safety measures, no unwanted pregnancies and in general would more or less achieve heaven on Earth.
Next challange: Place a camera in front of the bike that scans approaching pedestrians. Calculate their head position and trajectory. Use directional speakers and focused sound beams to focus the ~780Hz sound towards the head(s) of the pedestrian(s). Now that you are not bothering the environment as much, you can increase the volume as well.
I would love that but not so much for pedestrians as for cars that don't see me on my bike. Ideally, the "bell" would automatically honk at them very loudly when they get too close.
This bell would be illegal in Denmark, where our laws clearly state that you are only allowed one signal giving device and that any signal giving devices attached to vehicles (including bikes) can only produce one constant sound.
Really? I would have guessed you could argue that it qualifies as „one signal giving device“ since it is one single piece of equipment (ie the horn in a car also has many parts, but it‘s presumably fine) and also that it „only produces one constant sound“, where that sound is composed of different frequencies (again, car horns probably don‘t have a pure tone in Denmark either, right?).
Cool idea. But bizarre that they worked with Deliveroo. Bike bells were designed for a time when cyclists travelled at speeds where you could safely get out of the way.
Most "independent" cyclists do cycle safely.
But delivery riders for delivery platforms commonly use illegally modified e-bikes. Platforms have the GPS data. They must know.
They could make huge improvements in safety by actively preventing the use of illegally modified e-bikes that travel too fast.
I find the "Heard five seconds earlier, the difference between a serious collision and stepping aside" take hilarious. As if there is no other way to prevent a collision in five seconds other than the pedestrian getting out of the way.
As much as I get the urge to plow through pedestrians on bike paths (and stay proudly in the way of bikes on pedestrian paths), in real life, normal people don't do that kind of thing. Bikes have brakes for a reason.
It is amazing they openly shared their findings [0], but one thing I am missing is what this design would cost if put into mass production. To the biggest layman possible, it reads like while the design is clever and would be more expensive by virtue of more materials/size alone, it's not impractical, but maybe someone more informed on this type of manufacturing can correct my ignorance. If that's the case, hopefully we'll see these designs on the market soon as even with music+ANC, I have found certain sounds to be able to easily penetrate through when listening, though that is purely subjective and I don't have my music earbleedingly loud...
I have noticed I can make a less sharp sound with my bike bell by ringing it a certain way. I use this to let pedestrians know I am coming but that they don't have to jump out of the way.
On a serious note there’s a marketing problem in my view: who out there who chooses to buy a bell even considers that their might be a loudness problem? It’s not immediately obvious that I need this and I’m sure there’s a premium price attached.
It's not about the cyclists wearing ANC headsets (which is already prohibited at least in Euro countries), but about pedestrians wearing them. Another problem altogether.
In effect they are, even if not directly. There are requirements to stay aware of your surroundings. If you cause an accident by blocking all sounds, I totally can see insurance companies claiming this is your own responsibility and refusing to cover.
i’m on airpods pro 3, and it’s far from producing noise-cancellation so powerful as to require such measures. perhaps if I’m listening to heavy music at ear-damaging levels. maybe my hearing is too sensitive.
The problem with headphones is not noise cancellation. It’s the fact they play music.
My regular Widek bell penetrates ANC, but when there’s music, ANC or not, it’s hard to hear. I’m struggling to believe the claims this bell is going to be significantly better.
If this bell gets through ANC then yes it will help people with ANC. It's not an all or nothing situation, you hear it further away for each increase in loudness.
Also, ANC let's you reduce your music volume for the same signal to noise ratio.
I've noticed some trains are playing extremely loud announcements (Elizabeth line for example) which makes me think they're trying to penetrate headphones and earphones
Guess why I wear noise cancelling headphones on trains? Because of the excessive announcements!
(I mean seriously excessive. Because in the UK the answer to everything is to create another announcement or poster)
I don't know where you're from, but in Germany for example, there are countless situations where cyclists and pedestrians share the same space, or pedestrians can (or just do…) cross bicycle lanes. I'm a very law-abiding cyclist since witnessing a few horrible accidents, and yet I encounter situations with headphone-wearing pedestrians regularly. Often I'll ring my bell to no avail, until driving right up to them, and they still won't hear me. This is really frustrating; I'm definitely in the market for this.
I am aware that most countries do not have dedicated roads for cyclists, but that doesn't mean that cyclists should be using sidewalks. When I go out and walk on the sidewalk, I expect to be able to just walk safely without having to think about potential riders of bicycles or other things that people ride on sidewalks.
Then it's a stupid law. But from the image that other commenter gave, it does look like Germany has space that is clearly intended for cyclists, and I have no issue with that. I have issue with instances when people cycle on sidewalks intended for pedestrians.
It's not always as clearly demarcated as on that picture; sometimes there's just a sign.
I would also argue that a reasonably broad way for pedestrians and bicyclists can be shared without any issue, if both parties pay some modicum of attention to their surroundings and treat each other with mutual respect: Pedestrians by keeping to the right side of the path, and cyclists by slowing down when overtaking and ringing the bell to let people know they are approaching.
If just slowing down helps to prevent an accident, not sure what the bell would be good for - except for signaling your frustration to everyone around you
> I'm a very law-abiding cyclist since witnessing a few horrible accidents, and yet I encounter situations with headphone-wearing pedestrians regularly. Often I'll ring my bell to no avail, until driving right up to them, and they still won't hear me. This is really frustrating; I'm definitely in the market for this.
I’m guessing some law (law-abiding) gives you the right to bother people who are using their own feet instead of wheels because you want to pass them and they should have to actively watch out for you and yield to you? Okay, that part is fine. But I don’t see how it is nice or, I dunno, ethical.
In my experience (in my locale) as a cyclist you either give pedestrians a wide enough berth, dismount so that you can pass them if it is crowded and there is no passage, or use the vehicular road.
I remember violating this one time when I belled someone that I wanted to pass on the sidewalk. But I was a child at the time. Even more self-centered than I am now.
These seeming rules for yielding to cyclists are worse than the laws and norms when cars interact with bicycles, by the way. At least where I am: cars never honk cyclists. They have to wait for them or find a window to pass them safely. They can’t honk them into the ditch or something.
> I’m guessing some law (law-abiding) gives you the right to bother people who are using their own feet instead of wheels because you want to pass them and they should have to actively watch out for you and yield to you? Okay, that part is fine. But I don’t see how it is nice or, I dunno, ethical.
No. There are just people who will walk on a designated bicycle lane because they haven't seen the signage, are ignorant or careless about it, or will just cross it to get somewhere else. All while wearing ANC headphones. This isn't about bothering someone, but warning them. It's really no different from someone jaywalking without seeing you, and honking to make them aware of that. Or are you supposing you'd just break and wait until they're finished crossing the street?
As a cyclist in London, I’ve hit one pedestrian: they stepped backward(!) into a cycle lane. I had nowhere to go, as there was a curb on the other side. Pedestrian behaviour is just totally wild with respect to cycle lanes, a lot of them are just totally oblivious. If you cycle, you will come across people walking along or stepping into dedicated cycle lanes several times during the average commute.
At least here in Austria, I honestly rarely, if ever, see them do that. Either roads or dedicated/mixed designated cycle paths. We do have enforcement even against cyclists, though more than anything, that catches all the "unlocked" e-bikes, because cycling on the sidewalks is not a thing anyone does.
Even with bikes being off the sidewalk, there is need for a quick way of getting others pedestrians attention.
e.g.: In Amsterdam you cross biking lanes to cross the roads sometimes, or bike lanes and sidewalks are so integrated, you can wander into them without noticing.
Being tired in a crowded street in rainy weather doesn't help either.
This is always an odd one, as it’s the people who look like they just found a bike in a skip and decided to ride around here that cycle on the pavements.
Well, sure, as soon as infrastructure exists so the alternative isn't "get run over by a homicidal driver". And actual infrastructure, not painted lines that typically get filled up with double-parking cars.
Edit 2: I originally didn’t think of the case when you want to warn pedestrians that you are passing (without asking them to give way) in case they decide to switch direction without looking if there is any incoming entities. That seems legitimate to me. Although giving a wide enough berth might be better than doing it routinely (that could amount to a lot of noise eventually).
Edit: Since people seem to go either way: It is my understanding that in my part of the world (in Scandinavia) cyclists do not have the right of way on sidewalks (which means they can’t bell people away). They also (and I know this one) do not have the right of way while cycling across road crossings. Something that most cyclists, in my experience, violate all the time.
Quite. It drives me up the wall when cyclists not only use the sidewalk close enough to me to practically graze me (pedestrian), but expect me to actively pay attention and yield to them. Use the road, dummy (there are scarce few bicycle lanes).
I use regular headphones (not over-ear and not really noise canc.) on the sidewalk but take them off when I am crossing the street. And I of course am mindful of other pedestrians. But I’m not gonna take them off because some two-wheeler thinks they can ram into me unless I jump out of the way on the sidewalk.
I always hate having my headphones on ANC on the street. It makes me feel really exposed and disconnected. I tend to use transparency when out and about.
> In real-world trials conducted on the streets of London in February, in cooperation with Deliveroo couriers, the bell proved so effective that couriers expressed a desire to keep it.
Of course they would, because a lot of them either don’t have any bell, or have a shitty ping-ping bell that doesn’t produce good sound.
Living in a city you cannot stand so much that you wear noise cancelling headphones at all times. Commuting to work that you hate and manoeuvring between zombies looking at their phones, wearing noise cancelling headphones, and occasional cars recklessly opening doors or joining the traffic without looking in the mirrors. You even forgot the original goal of saving money because the rent eats 50% of the net salary and work eats every will to live. Here it is - the fruit of your glorious education and mean by which your mortgage is paid is bicycle bell. Thanks for reminding me to stay away from this miserable mess.
I’m more afraid of cyclists than of cars. I know exactly where the road starts and end, I know there are traffic lights drivers and pedestrians usually respect, so it’s very unlikely that I can get hit by a car. And Im talking about myself, not about the average person (I know stats may say otherwise)
But cyclists can ride in the pedestrian lane, bike lanes and pedestrians lanes are not easily distinguishable (if you are visiting a new city/country for example, and/or the painting of the lanes disappear over time) compared to roads, you typically can hear cars/motorbikes coming (though with electric cars that’s less common) while bikes are very silent, and last but not least, typically there is certain hierarchy when it comes to cars and pedestrians (at least in Europe): pedestrians come first. That’s not the case with bikes (which based on my experience, they share the same level of importance with pedestrians in the streets)
More or less at the time when electric bicycles weighing over 20kg and moving over 30kmh started to drive on sidewalks, I started to avoid living in big cities.
In order for e.g. a horn to work you need enough time that the driver processes the situation and decides the horn will communicate something AND enough time for the pedestrian or whatever to process that and react to it. Generally it's a lot easier just to press the brake, and more importantly be travelling at a speed and in a manner where the brake is sufficient.
Structurally, we'd be much better off reducing conflicts between the different tiers of users. I.e. properly segregated infrastructure for each class of vehicle.
My opinion as a cyclist is that I should basically only be using my bell on pedestrians when the pedestrians are wandering onto the bike lane. If im cycling through a shared space, I find it extremely rude to ring the bell, because it feels like I'm telling people to get out of my way, but they have just as much right to a shared path as I do. Some cyclists ring their bells because they're worried a pedestrian might suddenly turn into their path, but I think if one is concerned about that, it's a sign youre cycling too fast, and should just slow down.
With cars, I will sometimes proactively ring my bell at them if I think they're not sufficiently aware enough of me though.
It’s certainly rude to ring the bell in a aggressive manner, but many bells are capable of producing much softer, more polite sounds.
In super busy old European capitals I find that people increasingly just ride around with speakers playing a constant tune at a reasonable volume, a massive improvement on dense streets full of varyingly sober people.
At least a bell sounds relatively polite if you're not spamming it. A horn is a bit aggressive, you have to modulate it.
In a car I use two short tapped toots as a polite kind of 'excuse me' e.g. if someone hasn't noticed a light turning green. That seems more friendly than a sustained blast.
On the bike with a bell I'll just say thank you as I pass, if they've moved for me. Usually seems to go down well enough.
Older folks on e-bikes love to do this. I highly suspect that they are unable to hold their heavy e-bikes upright on lower speeds, so they have to aggressively plow through pedestrians.
There's only a few types of car that will be "aware" of cyclists and I don't think ringing a bell will help their algorithms. Getting the attention of a driver, meanwhile, is difficult with a bell as often they'll be in a semi-soundproof cage with loud music on. (Also deaf drivers are a thing).
I've never really considered using a bell for motorised traffic. I did once buy a loud air-horn, but it was so loud and abrasive that I never used it as it seemed really rude.
Passing a single pedestrian or runner on a quiet day: no bell, coasting for a short bit with a loud free hub (the rotating ratchet element on the rear wheel) alerts the pedestrian to my presence.
Passing a runner: normal ring from a distance so they have knowledge that the bicycle is passing
Passing a cyclist: one loud ring from a distance
Passing a pedestrian walking a dog: two loud rings, one far, one close, so that the pedestrian is aware of the approaching bicycle and he can prevent his dog from running at me/colliding. Many dogs do seem to enjoy a bicycle chase.
Antisocial pedestrians (i.e., walking side-by-side such as to be blocking the path in both directions, preventing the bicyclist from passing): several loud rings of the bell until the antisocial activity has abated. Announcements in my local tongue (not English) that they impede the flow of traffic.
They absolutely do, for indirect reasons:
> Generally it's a lot easier just to press the brake
Maybe easier, but it hardly seems fair, nor realistic.
With a bit of experience, you can tell when pedestrians are likely to stumble onto the bike lane without looking. Then you have two choices: Significantly reduce your speed, or ring your bell first and only reduce speed if they still haven't noticed the oncoming bike.
If you only reduce speed, you'll be traveling at a very low average speed, and time is money (especially for bike delivery workers, but I also hate having to sharply decelerate for people glued to their screen or otherwise completely unaware of their surroundings even if I'm not in a rush), so you can take a guess as to whether "just reducing your speed" is practicable.
Well this is a bit of an appeal to consequences. I would say (a) this is a very good reason to build dedicated infra, and (b) if something ever does happen, a court is really not going to take this line of reasoning very well, so be careful with it... even if in practice it's how you consider it.
What would you suggest cyclists do until that happens? Never go faster than walking speed? Then I can leave my bike at home. Cycle on the road, where cars can hit me, instead of the dedicated bike lane, use of which is often mandatory?
> a court is really not going to take this line of reasoning very well
A court will rule in favor of the pedestrian stepping onto a bike lane without looking getting hit by a bike that's too close to do anything?
I don't know where you live but it's quite unusual here to be cycling through areas that have a lot of pedestrians. If the bike lane is a dedicated one, pedestrians are very rarely in it. But yes if all else fails, the road is preferable to the pavement if you're unwilling to cycle slowly enough.
> how do you prevent pedestrians from crossing said dedicated infrastructure without looking?
That's a UX problem. You can also ask how to prevent cars driving on the cycle lane. Which we do in a multitude of ways. You just need to physically communicate segregation and danger.
> A court will rule in favor of the pedestrian stepping onto a bike lane without looking getting hit by a bike that's too close to do anything?
Here, absolutely, if they consider the cyclist is going too fast for the conditions. There's a concept of a hierarchy whereby the more vulnerable class is almost assumed not to be at fault. Same for a car hitting a cyclist, or a motorbike, even.
Pedestrians step onto the dedicated bike lane I use to commute on average at least once per way for me.
> But yes if all else fails, the road is preferable to the pavement if you're unwilling to cycle slowly enough.
Of course I'm taking the road if there's no dedicated bike lane. Cycling faster than walking speed on the sidewalk seems reckless to me.
> That's a UX problem. You can also ask how to prevent cars driving on the cycle lane. Which we do in a multitude of ways. You just need to physically communicate segregation.
Yes, but I can only use the bike lane that already exists. Of course I prefer the ones with better UX.
> There's a concept of a hierarchy whereby the more vulnerable class is almost assumed not to be at fault.
Not where I live. You are allowed to e.g. trust adult pedestrians without any visible signs of impairment to not randomly step into the road. Otherwise, driving cars next to sidewalks or crossing intersections would only be possible at walking speed as well.
Of course, if you already see somebody approaching the road, somebody walking unsteadily, visibly intoxicated etc. you are obliged to still brake. The question here is whether visible noise-cancelling headphones would be considered a similar visible impairment, I suppose.
Personally, I just always assume I haven't been noticed, because ultimately I don't want to run somebody over even if I would be legally in the clear. That's a different story, though.
Here in the UK, there was an infamous case of Charlie Alliston who ended up getting a ridiculous 18 months prison sentence after colliding with a pedestrian who hit her head and subsequently died. He was riding a "fixie" without a front brake and was cycling at around 18mph through some green traffic lights. The pedestrian was crossing the road further on (i.e. not at a junction which is fairly normal) and wasn't paying enough attention, so Charlie shouted at her to get out of his way. He started to reduce speed (rear brake only), but then decided that he could just aim for the gap behind her, but she then reacted to his shouting by stepping backwards into his path.
The point is that the judge awarded such a tough sentence partly due to Charlie not taking all available actions to avoid a collision and also because his bike was illegal to use on the road due to having just one brake. So, if you rely on a bell to clear your path, you could be held liable if they don't respond and you collide.
My bell just gives me the significant improvement of possibly getting a reaction from the pedestrian long before I need to start braking.
However, not everybody does cycle like that. And while legally and ethically dubious, the bell still helps in that case as well.
My solution is to still have a tiny bell on my road bike, but instead of using it, call out something like "can I get past, please?" or if an immediate response is required (e.g. ped blindly stepping into the road ahead of me) then yelling "Oi!" can really surprise them and make them notice you. I'm also a fan of using "Beep, beep" if a ped is on cycle infrastructure (active travel infrastructure is probably a better term) and I want to pretend that I'm an impatient driver.
I think the human voice is far superior to a bell as you can tailor the message for the situation and you don't have to move a hand away from the brakes to do so. (Using your voice is also a very good idea when approaching a horse and rider - horses know about humans and don't get freaked out if you call ahead "Morning!" or something cheery and appropriate).
The bell can be useful as a more general "I'm here" warning. But if there's any actual risk of a collision, yelling and braking are far more effective.
It goes without saying, use of said frequency should be prohibited for other purposes, especially marketing.
Legally, use of horns in traffic is restricted, and abuse can be punished. Doesn’t keep people from honking all the time.
Also ANC works best on wide-spectrum sounds, so any kind of siren or the cries of a child will go through, as the spectrum is a series of narrow peaks.
A bell is helpful in a situation where a pedestrian is not aware of an approaching bike. The bell informs the pedestrian of two things:
1. That there is an approaching bike.
2. Roughly were the bike is approaching from.
The hope is that the pedestrian will then behave in a predictable way to allow a safe pass by the bike. In almost all cases the pedestrian will be able to simply continue doing what they were doing before they heard the bell.
If a pedestrian can not hear bike bells, for whatever reason, that is not a problem. They can just stay consistent with the centreline of the path/road/way. They then have a responsibility to shoulder check when shifting from side to side.
I think the solution is nice for sure, but solving the wrong problem.
If everything went perfectly everytime we wouldn't need any safety equipment, but things aren't always perfect.
I say it as cyclist. Pedestrians have right to be absent minded in parks and on public sidewalks.
For example, I can go into datacenter and it will cancel all the datacenter noise(aside for when air blows directly into mic, it overdrives it) but I can still hear what other person is saying.
Also I used them to generally listen to podcast so there was no wall of music to go thru, so sirens and such were easily discernable
I used to commute to work by bike in ~1M city in Europe, mostly on dedicated bike lanes, but some shared, and had just the smallest, barely audible bell, only because it was required by law. I don't remember using it much at all. I don't know what the problem is. Maybe the Londoners should take a good look at themselves.
I agree that on a footpath pedestrians should be treated as having priority.
A semi-common way I use my bell: when on a shared footpath with plenty of space to take over, I often use my bell when I'm still ten meters away, so that I don't give pedestrians are heart attack by suddenly dashing right past them.
(I have a nice ding dong bell. They don't seem to mind. It also helps that I often have a cheerful five year old in the back.)
Safe or not - it is up to individual to decide if it is worth the risk.
I used to live in a city where I would walk everywhere but I had the constant fear of cyclists running over me because they would drive all over the pavements without any regard for pedestrians. Imagine walking and having to look around all the time. I find it amusing how people in websites like this one talk about how we have to be very afraid of cars when the true terror, at least for me, were cyclists.
One large fine, and people will learn.
Jaywalking is even a misdemeanor in some areas of the USA, it doesn't stop it from happening at all.
It's replacing a problem you can't solve (human stupidity), with one you can (a better bell).
I don’t actually mind people doing that though. What is annoying is the entitled attitude that there should be no consequence for that choice, and everyone else should orbit/compensate around their lack of situational awareness.
I have very little time for people who freely absolve themselves of their personal responsibility to be aware of their surroundings and we shouldn't be encouraging people to zone out of society just so they can consume more.
I am comfortable cycling slower than walking pace and if I am in a real rush for speed I will cycle on the road but sometimes pedestrians can cause serious cycling accidents even when you're careful or slow.
They usually do. (The considerate and/or non-confrontational ones. There are always idiots, and people have the tendency to remember negative outliers and project their behavior on the group as a whole, which is unfortunate.) However, slowing down isn't the whole story. Riding a non-motorized bicycle is much easier if the rider can keep moving, however slowly, so it would be considerate in turn for the pedestrian to step aside and let the cyclist pass, if possible. A distracted pedestrian can be warned by a bell.
Separately, delivery riders as a category have an incentive to ride as quickly as possible, which is a recipe for conflict. Removing that incentive means removing or completely reimagining the service. I don't think that anybody has a solution or mitigation at present.
I’m not sure arguing against a bell is helpful - people need to look on any road, especially with the advent of quiet electric cars.
You may notice that in this worldview (one which I find very hard to argue against) cyclists should give priority to pedestrians, no questions asked. I don't care about fancy bells or whatever, no-one takes those into consideration even when we (us, pedestrians, that is) can hear them because, and I repeat, cyclists are not as important as pedestrians are.
Your worldview (mostly) applies to pedestrian crossings but that's the extent of it.
> Why can't the cyclists slow down when they see that there's a human obstacle in front of them?
Because if the space is limited and they actually want to get somewhere, they just don't have time for that? And slowing down often means stopping and causing a traffic jam.
Note that I mostly agree with what you wrote (and I give priority to pedestrians when I'm riding my bike) but there are different situations that have to be taken into account.
I've lost count of the times I've been riding at walking pace behind someone, on a shared path, waiting to get past because they're completely oblivious to the bell ringing, politely asking, or even flashing lights.
In the Netherlands, bicycle utopia, I cannot remember the last time I used my bell to alert a pedestrian of my existence. Granted, I never cycle in Amsterdam, but that is a special location where high-powered ship horns are probably required.
Regarding ANC, I naturally turn it off while cycling on my Bose Quiet Comfort II, as the ANC will try (and fail) to cancel the noise from the wind. I don't think this is a solved problem? So for bicycle-to-bicycle alerting, this also seems overkill.
This could serve as the blueprint I guess, skip to the part about the 70s and 80s protests. Collective and popular protests helped by an oil crisis, recognizing vested interests in other modes of transportation (cars) that might want to work against your efforts.
Sounds neither simple nor technical.
In my (Dutch) city, there is this infuriating piece of road where the bicycle path suddenly gets routed onto the kerb, intentionally mixing bikes and pedestrians. I believe the theory is that bikes will go slower so pedestrians don't need to worry about crossing the road as much or something.
Predictably, lots bikes are taken by surprise, either brake hard and suddenly or fly through pedestrians (who the biker thinks are in their bike lane, because they would be two meters earlier).
In my experience, when bikes and pedestrians meet, one of the two groups is in the wrong place and should be watching out/slowing down and waiting.
The example video shows various instances of pedestrians walking in bike lanes (and seemingly being surprised at the sudden appearance of a bike there). You can't fix stupid, but at least you can tell them to get off the bike path.
Paths where pedestrians and bikers (and other light transportation vehicles) are mixed are overwhelmingly common.
That is an unfortunate, probably experimental?, traffic design choice...
Personally, I see no use for this bell since in Austria bicycles share the road space with cars, trucks and trams rather than pedestrians, which could be more dangerous, and what I would need is a bicycle bell that could penetrate car enclosures so that drivers would get off their phones and pay attention to the stuff around them.
Yes, I know, ideally there should be dedicated cycle lanes only for bicycles but nothing in life is ever ideal, and the city isn't gonna do that anytime soon since that would mean completely eliminating car traffic on the narrow streets, witch would be political suicide, so a bell would be an instant life saver.
The OP seemed to suggest that people wearing ANC headgear should stop doing so, but both the bell and the ANC-wearing pedestrians are a non-issue in my lived experience.
It would be a shame if these "cyclist-pedestrian ANC-wars" distract from the real issue, that cyclists are not, but should be, a fully emancipated participant in traffic and infrastructure should be designed with cars (to a degree), bicyclists AND pedestrians in mind.
As somebody living in a city that's quite bike friendly, all things concerned, but still not close to Dutch or Danish levels of biking safety, I'll take any "technical solutions that try to solve social/political problems" I can get to make my commute safer.
Also, anything that makes biking feel safer will make more people try commuting by bike, which in turn increases the political will to change traffic laws and space use. Nothing exists in a vacuum.
Your argument was not a solution. You just said, "NL fixd this, why haven't other countries?" which doesn't add any value.
Have you considered that other cities/countries can't just add infrastructure that hasn't been designed from the start to accommodate bikes the same way NL has without taking space away from pedestrians or cars as the roads have stayed as narrow as back in the 1800s?
And that fixing it is not a switch you can just turn on on a whim, but requires decades of political and societal change around repurposing infrastructure, plus capital, before consensus is achieved? Democracies are complicated, even moreson in times like these.
What do you do until then, when a bell is an instant improvement?
You're commenting off the sidelines without realizing why most countries can't flip a switch and become NL overnight.
>It would be a shame if these "cyclist-pedestrian ANC-wars" distract from the real issue, that cyclists are not, but should be, a fully emancipated participant in traffic and infrastructure should be designed with cars (to a degree), bicyclists AND pedestrians in mind.
Yeah but what do you do if they are? There's no ANC wars here, Skoda just made a better bell. Are you also against the development of better bicycle helmets, because where you live you don't need them? Like yes sure, infrastructure is the real solution, but what do you do until that arrives?
Why does Skoda, a car manufacturer, care so much about interactions between cyclists and pedestrians? As you say, a bell that penetrates the car enclosures would be much more useful. I suspect a similar reason why pro-safety helmet lobby groups in NL received a lot of funding from these same car manufacturers. I digress..
For your information, post-WWII infrastructure developments in NL were initially highly car-friendly. This only started to change in the 70s and 80s, when the government started to actually create bicycle-related traffic policy, after collective protests (e.g. popular pro-bicycle protest songs were written, children refused to go to schools unless bicycle paths were laid, etc.) also helped by the oil crisis of the time.
So, no it can't be fixed overnight, but it can be fixed in reasonable time (and not an unspecified amount of decades, political capital and funding). We are even living through a repeated history right now.
When bikes have to go through areas where people walk freely, they need to limit their speed to a walking pace.
People should not wear headphones (noise-cancelling or not) when going through traffic as pedestrians. Take them off when crossing!
People should not hear loud music when driving - max is normal speaking voice level. Bike drivers should never hear any music, let alone wearing headphones. Behind-ear speakers on low could be a compromise.
Hey, we just solved 90% of the accidents.
This is the reality in many cities, if it weren't for the hopefully not surprising fact that people don't always obey traffic laws perfectly.
People can shout "domestic terror" all they like, but if it's not true, it's not true.
Of course this requires compensating for the loss in awareness through hearing by looking more diligently before crossing a bike lane, but unfortunately, some people never learn this, or only through a few close calls.
"Annoyingly" ringing a bell and converting a potential accident into a close call seems pretty close to optimal to me.
> People should not hear loud music when driving - max is normal speaking voice level.
which feels like a more than acceptable constraint to me.
Other things like loudness levels inside cars cannot be monitored without going in full totalitarian mode.
How this would be enforced is a different topic.
Most "independent" cyclists do cycle safely.
But delivery riders for delivery platforms commonly use illegally modified e-bikes. Platforms have the GPS data. They must know.
They could make huge improvements in safety by actively preventing the use of illegally modified e-bikes that travel too fast.
Bit cringe marketing though.
As much as I get the urge to plow through pedestrians on bike paths (and stay proudly in the way of bikes on pedestrian paths), in real life, normal people don't do that kind of thing. Bikes have brakes for a reason.
Happened to be the company founder's surname.
same with most of the Japanese car brands or even Citroen, Peugeot...
[0] https://cdn.skoda-storyboard.com/2026/04/Skoda-DuoBell-Resea...
Pretty cool though!
On a serious note there’s a marketing problem in my view: who out there who chooses to buy a bell even considers that their might be a loudness problem? It’s not immediately obvious that I need this and I’m sure there’s a premium price attached.
That's such a beautiful statement
Remember that a horn is a safety feature.
My regular Widek bell penetrates ANC, but when there’s music, ANC or not, it’s hard to hear. I’m struggling to believe the claims this bell is going to be significantly better.
Also, ANC let's you reduce your music volume for the same signal to noise ratio.
Guess why I wear noise cancelling headphones on trains? Because of the excessive announcements!
(I mean seriously excessive. Because in the UK the answer to everything is to create another announcement or poster)
We need to stop the arms race
Left side is for bicycles. Right side for pedestrians. It is a dedicated lane but a shared space.
Huh? Germany has signs on same shared pavements that tell you that by law your bike needs to be on there, not on the road.
Are you suggesting people break the law over your preferences?
I would also argue that a reasonably broad way for pedestrians and bicyclists can be shared without any issue, if both parties pay some modicum of attention to their surroundings and treat each other with mutual respect: Pedestrians by keeping to the right side of the path, and cyclists by slowing down when overtaking and ringing the bell to let people know they are approaching.
I’m guessing some law (law-abiding) gives you the right to bother people who are using their own feet instead of wheels because you want to pass them and they should have to actively watch out for you and yield to you? Okay, that part is fine. But I don’t see how it is nice or, I dunno, ethical.
In my experience (in my locale) as a cyclist you either give pedestrians a wide enough berth, dismount so that you can pass them if it is crowded and there is no passage, or use the vehicular road.
I remember violating this one time when I belled someone that I wanted to pass on the sidewalk. But I was a child at the time. Even more self-centered than I am now.
These seeming rules for yielding to cyclists are worse than the laws and norms when cars interact with bicycles, by the way. At least where I am: cars never honk cyclists. They have to wait for them or find a window to pass them safely. They can’t honk them into the ditch or something.
No. There are just people who will walk on a designated bicycle lane because they haven't seen the signage, are ignorant or careless about it, or will just cross it to get somewhere else. All while wearing ANC headphones. This isn't about bothering someone, but warning them. It's really no different from someone jaywalking without seeing you, and honking to make them aware of that. Or are you supposing you'd just break and wait until they're finished crossing the street?
Sorry. Apparently I didn’t read your comment carefully enough.
Even with bikes being off the sidewalk, there is need for a quick way of getting others pedestrians attention.
Being tired in a crowded street in rainy weather doesn't help either.
Edit: Since people seem to go either way: It is my understanding that in my part of the world (in Scandinavia) cyclists do not have the right of way on sidewalks (which means they can’t bell people away). They also (and I know this one) do not have the right of way while cycling across road crossings. Something that most cyclists, in my experience, violate all the time.
Quite. It drives me up the wall when cyclists not only use the sidewalk close enough to me to practically graze me (pedestrian), but expect me to actively pay attention and yield to them. Use the road, dummy (there are scarce few bicycle lanes).
I use regular headphones (not over-ear and not really noise canc.) on the sidewalk but take them off when I am crossing the street. And I of course am mindful of other pedestrians. But I’m not gonna take them off because some two-wheeler thinks they can ram into me unless I jump out of the way on the sidewalk.
Of course they would, because a lot of them either don’t have any bell, or have a shitty ping-ping bell that doesn’t produce good sound.
[0] https://xkcd.com/1217/
Maybe the issue is the noise in the cities?
But cyclists can ride in the pedestrian lane, bike lanes and pedestrians lanes are not easily distinguishable (if you are visiting a new city/country for example, and/or the painting of the lanes disappear over time) compared to roads, you typically can hear cars/motorbikes coming (though with electric cars that’s less common) while bikes are very silent, and last but not least, typically there is certain hierarchy when it comes to cars and pedestrians (at least in Europe): pedestrians come first. That’s not the case with bikes (which based on my experience, they share the same level of importance with pedestrians in the streets)