Yet Another Cycling Forum
General Category => Freewheeling => Topic started by: Honest John on 14 March, 2011, 04:51:39 pm
-
I get really quite upset when pedestrians appear to be assuming I'm about to mow them down.
Latest incident - yesterday evening, leaving Waterloo station via the cab route.
Over the speed bumps, round the bend under the bridge with a taxi outriding on my RH rear, to the lights, which are red.
I stop. Taxi stops.
Pedestrian about to cross in front of us sees me and seems to jump out of his skin, then walks tentatively across the road. And you can bet your boots he regaled his mates about how he was nearly run over by a cyclist.
WTF did he look startled when he saw me? Lights on, pied a terre and stationary.
And why do I never see this behaviour among pedestrians in other countries?
Harrrrrumph.
-
It's not surprising, the fact is most cyclists in London ride around like dicks, dodging through a pedestrian crossing when masses of people are still crossing on a green man is a matter of routine.
I always wait for vehicles to stop before crossing the road on a pedestrian crossing. Usually 2 or 3 cars will go through on red when the lights change.
-
It's not surprising, the fact is most cyclists in London ride around like dicks.
In the rush hour, perhaps, but at 6pm on a Sunday?
-
Pedestrians do not ever flinch from me - because I give them respect and plenty of room and time*, even when they are on the pavement going in the same direction as me. Pass close and fast, then of course they flinch.
* Except if they are deliberately taking the mick from me specifically, then I steer towards them :demon:
-
They may have been hit in the past. I broke a rib when an RLJing cyclist hit me when I was on foot (it didn't do him much good either, but I'm less worried about that). I flinched at bikes for a while after that, and I sincerely hope he flinched at pedestrians.
I've had the same experience when I've been driving. There's a particular bad junction in Ealing which is prone to motorists thinking "Sod this jam, I'll take the rat run," and suddenly hauling off left without indicating or checking their mirrors (I mean, they're in a traffic jam! There's nothing coming because the traffic's not moving, amirite?)
Driving sloooooowly down that road and intending to turn left, I checked my mirror, noticed a cyclist, indicated as he came past, making sure to leave him plenty of space down the inside, still had the handbrake on, and watched in my mirror as his face screwed up and he did the sort of emergency stop that practically bounced. He'd just assumed I hadn't seen him and was about to pull a daft maneouvre. :(
-
Then there are the peds who wander across the road without looking...
-
Happens to me fairly regularly at pedestrian crossings. They tend to assume I'm not going to stop, especially if my brakes squeak, it's dark (I suppose my lights make it harder to judge what I'm doing), or I'm crawling slowly towards the crossing on the basis that there's a good chance it'll be clear and the lights will change before I reach the stop line.
Over-reliance on hearing to judge whether there are any vehicles coming before crossing seems to be a factor. They don't expect silent vehicles, so don't look, and are shocked when a bike appears 'out of nowhere'. Bring on the electric cars!
They're not usually too bad on shared-use paths, but I do tend to do an audible warning with the brakes/gears before passing them (tends not to be misinterpreted as agressive, unlike a bell). They often double-take if I'm on the 'bent, but that's normal.
-
This sort of thing used to piss me off - not so much at crossings but on shared use paths. But it doesn't any more because I often find myself doing it when I'm in pedestrian mode.
I can't help it! It's just an instinctive thing....
-
Pedestrians do not ever flinch from me - because I give them respect and plenty of room and time*, even when they are on the pavement going in the same direction as me. Pass close and fast, then of course they flinch.
* Except if they are deliberately taking the mick from me specifically, then I steer towards them :demon:
In this case, I'd stopped , behind the stop line, at a red light (as I usually do). Stationary. Standing still. Not moving. Foot on the ground.
Said ped still behaved as though the last thing he'd expect to see on the road was a bike.
-
They may have been hit in the past. I broke a rib when an RLJing cyclist hit me when I was on foot (it didn't do him much good either, but I'm less worried about that). I flinched at bikes for a while after that, and I sincerely hope he flinched at pedestrians.
I was 10ft from him and stationary.
I've had the same experience when I've been driving. There's a particular bad junction in Ealing which is prone to motorists thinking "Sod this jam, I'll take the rat run," and suddenly hauling off left without indicating or checking their mirrors (I mean, they're in a traffic jam! There's nothing coming because the traffic's not moving, amirite?)
Driving sloooooowly down that road and intending to turn left, I checked my mirror, noticed a cyclist, indicated as he came past, making sure to leave him plenty of space down the inside, still had the handbrake on, and watched in my mirror as his face screwed up and he did the sort of emergency stop that practically bounced. He'd just assumed I hadn't seen him and was about to pull a daft maneouvre. :(
That was probably a wise move - never trust a man with four wheels.
In this case, there was little traffic on the main road (the A23 Westminster Bridge Road) and the only vehicles queuing at the lights to join - on the cab road, Leake St (http://maps.google.co.uk/maps?f=q&source=s_q&hl=en&geocode=&q=Waterloo+Station,+Lambeth&aq=0&sll=53.800651,-4.064941&sspn=11.25,28.081055&ie=UTF8&hq=&hnear=Waterloo&ll=51.500348,-0.114799&spn=0.001446,0.003428&z=18) - were me and a black cab.
-
Happens to me fairly regularly at pedestrian crossings. They tend to assume I'm not going to stop,
I once stopped at a zebra on my commute where a lady was about to cross the road. I sat there for about 30secs and she still wouldn't cross (nothing in sight approaching).
After another 30 secs I urged her to cross. Just as she crossed a RAV4 roared past me about 10mph over the speed limit (Bob knows why he didn't realise why I'd stopped at a zebra crossing) and had to do a very messy emergency stop.
So if the lady hadn't been so paranoid about a cyclist who couldn't do her much damage and obviously wasn't going to anyway, by virute of being stationary, she wouldn't have almost got herself splatted by a 4wd.
Don't they realise it's the cars that kill people?
-
Maybe you look funny :)
-
I'm concerned on how the "Roads/Cars are Dangerous" message is being broadcast.
I've been escorting a group of runners (ages 13-17 or so) each Monday evening; I ride my tandem acting as sag-wagon. When they get to one particular zebra crossing, they will NOT go across it if a car is approaching, no matter how far away it is, and how far clear of the crossing they will get by the time the car reaches it. They seem to HAVE to wait until the car has actually stopped. This delays/annoys the car driver (who, 9 anna half times out of ten has eased-off the power to arrive the crossing to go behind the runners - who then refuse to move!) such that the driver might not bother slowing down next time.
-
That's down to the loss of priority to pedestrians, tied to the loss of Zebra Crossings.
I'm sure there are fewer pedestrian deaths at crossings now, but at the expense of pedestrian priority across the road network.
-
Use an Airzound?
-
That's down to the loss of priority to pedestrians, tied to the loss of Zebra Crossings.
I'm sure there are fewer pedestrian deaths at crossings now, but at the expense of pedestrian priority across the road network.
Which in turn is probably down to the fact that pedestrians splatted at crossings can be counted, but those using the crossings or crossing the road elsewhere, and more so those deciding not to do so, are far, far harder to count or even guess at.
The antidote is to take them to India, where they will soon notice that the green man coincides with the traffic on that road having the green light.
They're not usually too bad on shared-use paths, but I do tend to do an audible warning with the brakes/gears before passing them (tends not to be misinterpreted as agressive, unlike a bell). They often double-take if I'm on the 'bent, but that's normal.
There's a shared-use path in Bristol (the Frome Way) which I use twice a day to take my son to/from school, as well as usually twice a day on my own returning from dropping him off / going to pick him up. There's no silly line down the middle, it's just a path with a nice tarmac surface which can be used over its whole width by pedestrians and cyclists, and it's not on a pavement either - completely off-road. It's quite busy when we're going to school in the morning, but there's never any problem as the part we use has decent sight lines and if we happen to be in the middle of the path then we go one way and the cyclist goes the other. But today one bloke called out when he was about ten metres behind us "Watch your backs!" No, it didn't make me flinch, but it was oddly jarring. It came across as rather rude in the context, which is at odds with the behaviour of other cyclists and pedestrians on that path.
-
Maybe you look funny :)
Considerably less funny (peculiar or ha-ha) than many cyclists of my acquaintance 8)
-
I always wait for vehicles to stop before crossing the road on a pedestrian crossing.
Legally they don't have to stop unless you've moved on to the crossing itself (the pavement either side is not part of the crossing) but that's the line between legal requirements and being considerate to other road users.
The only MUST in HWC Rule 195 is that "you MUST give way when a pedestrian has moved onto a crossing." The bits of pavement by a crossing are not legally part of the crossing.
The first bit of Rule 195 ("look out for pedestrians waiting to cross and be ready to slow down or stop to let them cross") is not backed up by a law.
-
In London my approach at crossings has been the same for decades.
Approach the crossing, peripheral vision aware of what is coming.
Appear not to look and move purposefully on to the carriageway, obviously ready to pull back
Cross as the Taxi that wasn't going to stop has actually stopped because it thought you weren't looking.
-
In London my approach at crossings has been the same for decades.
Approach the crossing, peripheral vision aware of what is coming.
Appear not to look and move purposefully on to the carriageway, obviously ready to pull back
Cross as the Taxi that wasn't going to stop has actually stopped because it thought you weren't looking.
+1
-
I always wait for vehicles to stop before crossing the road on a pedestrian crossing.
Legally they don't have to stop unless you've moved on to the crossing itself (the pavement either side is not part of the crossing) but that's the line between legal requirements and being considerate to other road users.
The only MUST in HWC Rule 195 is that "you MUST give way when a pedestrian has moved onto a crossing." The bits of pavement by a crossing are not legally part of the crossing.
The first bit of Rule 195 ("look out for pedestrians waiting to cross and be ready to slow down or stop to let them cross") is not backed up by a law.
Yes, that's generally my attitude when cycling. If I see someone waiting to cross but not on the crossing, I'll slow down or stop if I have the time and distance to do it, although motor traffic behind me is a worry in these circs.
When I'm walking, I tend to walk onto the crossing pretending not to look if there's motor traffic coming.
-
The first bit of Rule 195 ("look out for pedestrians waiting to cross and be ready to slow down or stop to let them cross") is not backed up by a law.
No, but you'll fail the video part of the test quite spectacularly if you aren't aware of it.
And yes, I know that most current drivers passed their tests before that part was introduced.
-
The first bit of Rule 195 ("look out for pedestrians waiting to cross and be ready to slow down or stop to let them cross") is not backed up by a law.
No, but you'll fail the video part of the test quite spectacularly if you aren't aware of it.
And yes, I know that most current drivers passed their tests before that part was introduced.
Erm - I didn't even know there was a video part.
Another :thumbsup: to Jaded's method, too. In similar vein to my "walk straight at the motorbike on the pavement" technique for India - really pisses them off!
-
Erm - I didn't even know there was a video part.
Relatively recent addition. I did mine in 2004, soon after it came in.
This site has some example videos:
FREE online hazard perception test, mock hazard test, hazard perception clips, videos, demo clips (http://www.theory-test.co.uk/asp/hazard_perception_info.asp)
You sit at a computer (which you also use to answer the multiple-choice theory questions), it shows you videos like that, and you have to click the mouse button when you see a developing hazard. The skill is in calibrating your idea of a developing hazard against that of the test designer - you will fail if you click too often, or if you miss too many developing hazards.
It's not an entirely stupid idea, but does seem a bit arbitrary.
-
I have known Rule 195 or its predecessor since 1970 and tackled it by putting one foot on the crossing and waiting.
Nowadays, David pushes my wheelchair into the crossing ahead of him when he deems it appropriate.
This has been without incident so far but is a tad worrying...
-
Check regularly for any changes in insurance cover!
-
I have known Rule 195 or its predecessor since 1970 and tackled it by putting one foot on the crossing and waiting.
Nowadays, David pushes my wheelchair into the crossing ahead of him when he deems it appropriate.
This has been without incident so far but is a tad worrying...
There used to be a zebra crossing (now it's a poxy Puffin crossing) round the corner from me that was very difficult to use in the rush hour.
I had a fantasy of launching a pram full of bricks onto it in front of a speeding chavmobile. Lots of damage and initial guilt at splatting a tiny.
-
<sighs>
All 2 of the ped X I use regularly are now with green men etc.
You roll up and push the button
If you stand in the wrong place the button unpushes iteslf
Regardless of how empty the road is you will have to wait before getting a green
Usually it is at least as quick to not bother with the crossing
ho hum.
The younger generation are being trained to be 2nd class citizens and only cross the road when they're allowed to. (Apart from my 2 who are fed up with me fuming etc. and often cross the road elsewhere).
As to flinching, no idea. Probably just one of those things.
-
The younger generation are being trained to be 2nd class citizens and only cross the road when they're allowed to. (Apart from my 2 who are fed up with me fuming etc. and often cross the road elsewhere).
This is a good point and not at all without consequence, I fear. The UK is one of few countries where the signals are not legally binding on pedestrians as well as traffic. Many countries also have laws forbidding pedestrians to cross the road within a certain distance of a crossing, either with or without lights. And it's my observation that British drivers are much better than most at stopping for pedestrians waiting at the zebra.
-
As to flinching, no idea. Probably just one of those things.
Except I find it slightly insulting that pedestrians think i might ride into them.
-
Their mistake. I give them a big Tom Baker grin, and it confuses them even more than not being hit.
-
A guy on a red Raleigh steel-framed MTB-thing was incredibly polite today, which cancels out the "watch yer back" bloke and leaves a positive balance. :)
-
As to flinching, no idea. Probably just one of those things.
Except I find it slightly insulting that pedestrians think i might ride into them.
I've been flinching a lot lately, at cyclists, cars, birds, car keys ...
Don't take it personally. Primate hardwiring can go dysfunctional. There probly isn't any 'think' going on at all.
-
As to flinching, no idea. Probably just one of those things.
Except I find it slightly insulting that pedestrians think i might ride into them.
I've been flinching a lot lately, at cyclists, cars, birds, car keys ...
Don't take it personally. Primate hardwiring can go dysfunctional. There probly isn't any 'think' going on at all.
It's 100% natural. As you say - hardwiring. It should fade with time. :)
-
I've been flinching a lot lately, at cyclists, cars, birds, car keys ...
Don't take it personally. Primate hardwiring can go dysfunctional. There probly isn't any 'think' going on at all.
Indeed - I once had an utterly hideous and very vivid nightmare about the EldestCub being involved in an accident on a particular street in town. I couldn't walk down that street without getting the collywobbles for weeks afterwards, and on one occasion ages afterwards when the light conditions just happened to be very similar to the nightmare I had a wee wobble - and that was a reaction to a dream!
-
As to flinching, no idea. Probably just one of those things.
Except I find it slightly insulting that pedestrians think i might ride into them.
I have the same thing on shared use paths like the riverside path here in York. I often approach a family from behind and ting my bell just to warn them I'm coming past, or occasionally to get them to bunch up just enough for me to get by. So often, one of the adults will gather the whole flock around them and stop still, right off the path as I pass, brood gathered protectively to their legs. I don't want them to stop walking, I'm not saying "Gerroutamyway!", I just need enough space to get through, and not to make them jump. So I feel guilty that they feel I've made them stop and move over, AND I feel a little insulted that I somehow look threatening - although I know it's probably just an instinct or a misguided idea of what's helpful.
-
I had a pedestrian have a go at me for stopping at a red light (pelican crossing) just now. Yes, I could have gone straight over, but a) it's against the law and b) then you'd have had a go at me for RLJing. :facepalm:
-
I have known Rule 195 or its predecessor since 1970 and tackled it by putting one foot on the crossing and waiting.
Nowadays, David pushes my wheelchair into the crossing ahead of him when he deems it appropriate.
This has been without incident so far but is a tad worrying...
There is also the extension to that: Mothers (mostly young, or gabbing on the phone) who have a pushchair and don't realise it sticks out more than they do.
-
I had a pedestrian have a go at me for stopping at a red light (pelican crossing) just now. Yes, I could have gone straight over, but a) it's against the law and b) then you'd have had a go at me for RLJing. :facepalm:
That happened to me last year; I stopped at the red, on the zigzag lines, and the pedestrian walked into the side of me. "What did you stop there for?" he asked? ::-) I wish I'd asked "What are you crossing there for?"
-
I had a pedestrian have a go at me for stopping at a red light (pelican crossing) just now.
Should have told them to call the police. ;D
-
As to flinching, no idea. Probably just one of those things.
Except I find it slightly insulting that pedestrians think i might ride into them.
I have the same thing on shared use paths like the riverside path here in York.
I don't do shared-use paths if I can help it but, yes, that's the sort of thing.
It annoys me a lot.
Mind you, the hop-from-one-foot-to-the-other chicken dance is another variation and not only annoying, but dangerous.
Tooting Common:
The side of the path with little pedestrians painted on it is for pedestrians.
The side with little bicycles painted on it is for cyclists.
How hard is that?
-
Today, I had cause to ride some distance across Wandsworth Common. The paths are segregated with a slightly raised white line down the middle, and have painted pedestrian and cycle icons.
75% of pedestrians were on the wrong side. No one seemed to mind stepping aside, mind, when asked, and only a couple flinched.
-
The side of the path with little pedestrians painted on it is for pedestrians.
The side with little bicycles painted on it is for cyclists.
How hard is that?
Way beyond most folk in Blackpool and those that do coincidentally get it right have the retractable glorified rat dog lead across the cycle lane. I do wonder what would happen if i rode into it, I only use the prom cycle lane if out with the family since the peds IMO are more dangerous than the traffic and tbh on my own I'm going too fast to be using shared paths
-
I reckon it's a sort of perception of ownership or rightful-placeness.
Once there was just a path across a common. It was used mostly by people on foot but probably the occasional cyclist used it too. Strictly speaking it was illegal but nobody minded. Now, with a white line down the middle, it is as if half the path has been 'stolen' from pedestrians. Of course, this problem is at its worst on pavements.
I note that the Frome Way in Bristol, along which we used to walk to school (till changing to a nearer school today!) used to have no paint marks whatsoever. Now it has little bicycle symbols on each sign, but if they serve any purpose of dividing traffic for safety, it's more to prevent head-on bike-bike crashes. Walkers and cyclists all use the whole path and it seems to work well.
-
I reckon it's a sort of perception of ownership or rightful-placeness.
Once there was just a path across a common.
Naah. It also happens on paths that were created specifically for cycling that pedestrians have annexed.
-
Let's remember that pedestrians are allowed on cycle paths. It's up to us to slow down and be careful yes?
-
Let's remember that pedestrians are allowed on cycle paths. It's up to us to slow down and be careful yes?
Yes. And the same applies to pedestrians, especially if there are markings for "cyclists' side" and "pedestrians' side". This does not entitle them to walk four abreast or with their tame jackals' leads stretched across the path.
And if the cycle lane was built specifically for cyclists, parallel to a pedestrian path (e.g Clapham Common), pedestrians who walk on it are idiots.
-
Does that mean it's OK to ride at them, into them, or AirZound them?
-
Does that mean it's OK to ride at them, into them, or AirZound them?
I usually whistle and if that fails, say "excuse me".
I don't do air zounds or deliberate collisions. The latter are the territory of militant pedestrians who mistakenly think that cyclists, rather than motorists, are the people trying to hurt them.
There was one particularly obnoxious individual (mentioned before) who waged a one-man campaign to prevent legal cycling across Tooting Bec Common (http://www.wandsworthcyclists.org.uk/tootingCommon.shtml). He used a number of dirty tricks including dog-lead action, barging, deliberate collisions, intimidating small, young and female cyclists and poking a steel rule through cyclists' spokes while "measuring" how much room they were giving him (the path is 3 metres wide). For years he made what should have been the calmest and most pleasant part of my commute a nightmare.
Wandsworth Cycling Campaign won in the end.
-
Just to go OT for a little second, I have obviously been hanging around here for too long, I read the thread title as feltching pedestrians....
-
Let's remember that pedestrians are allowed on cycle paths. It's up to us to slow down and be careful yes?
Yes. And the same applies to pedestrians, especially if there are markings for "cyclists' side" and "pedestrians' side". This does not entitle them to walk four abreast or with their tame jackals' leads stretched across the path.
I'm afraid (with my cyclist's hat on) that pedestrians are indeed entitled to walk wherever they please on public land, with the exception of motorways or any other road from which they are prohibited. Yes, it's annoying, and in some cases deliberate, but just having a 'cycle side' or indeed a cycle only path doesn't prohibit people walking on it.
In the Highway code, cyclists MUST stay their side of the line, pedestrians only SHOULD, which is the vital difference.
With my pedestrian hat on (and my general 'power to the weakest' hat - I have lots of hats), this is a good thing, although I of course try and take care to leave room for people to pass and if on a segregated path, stick to 'my' side.
-
Let's remember that pedestrians are allowed on cycle paths. It's up to us to slow down and be careful yes?
Yes. And the same applies to pedestrians, especially if there are markings for "cyclists' side" and "pedestrians' side". This does not entitle them to walk four abreast or with their tame jackals' leads stretched across the path.
I'm afraid (with my cyclist's hat on) that pedestrians are indeed entitled to walk wherever they please on public land, with the exception of motorways or any other road from which they are prohibited. Yes, it's annoying, and in some cases deliberate, but just having a 'cycle side' or indeed a cycle only path doesn't prohibit people walking on it.
In the Highway code, cyclists MUST stay their side of the line, pedestrians only SHOULD, which is the vital difference.
With my pedestrian hat on (and my general 'power to the weakest' hat - I have lots of hats), this is a good thing, although I of course try and take care to leave room for people to pass and if on a segregated path, stick to 'my' side.
Indeed, just remember that pedestrians have priority, even on designated shared use paths.
It's pretty much the reason why I try and avoid shared use paths as much as possible, even if it means a reasonable detour on roads.
-
Let's remember that pedestrians are allowed on cycle paths. It's up to us to slow down and be careful yes?
Yes. And the same applies to pedestrians, especially if there are markings for "cyclists' side" and "pedestrians' side". This does not entitle them to walk four abreast or with their tame jackals' leads stretched across the path.
I'm afraid (with my cyclist's hat on) that pedestrians are indeed entitled to walk wherever they please on public land, with the exception of motorways or any other road from which they are prohibited. Yes, it's annoying, and in some cases deliberate, but just having a 'cycle side' or indeed a cycle only path doesn't prohibit people walking on it.
In the Highway code, cyclists MUST stay their side of the line, pedestrians only SHOULD, which is the vital difference.
With my pedestrian hat on (and my general 'power to the weakest' hat - I have lots of hats), this is a good thing, although I of course try and take care to leave room for people to pass and if on a segregated path, stick to 'my' side.
Indeed, just remember that pedestrians have priority, even on designated shared use paths.
This does not mean it is sensible or even reasonable to walk on a path clearly marked with painted bicycles.
-
It might not be sensible or reasonable but it happens
All the time
With dog lovers whose leads extend the full width of a path
And beyond
-
Remember, dog poo has priority over cycle tyres also. Forget this at your peril.
-
It might not be sensible or reasonable but it happens
All the time
With dog lovers whose leads extend the full width of a path
And beyond
I'm with the Koreans on dogs.
-
Remember, dog poo has priority over cycle tyres also. Forget this at your peril.
And pedestrian shoes. It also has a strong attraction to the pee fairy (both sorts). But if it contains pea then it's most likely human.
-
I don't expect to go fast on a shared path anyway, so what does it matter if a pedestrian delays me for two seconds? Not at all, does it matter.
It's only people stepping out onto the road without looking that gets on my nerves (ped wise). Too many people are relying purely on their hearing. Silly fools.
-
I don't expect to go fast on a shared path anyway, so what does it matter if a pedestrian delays me for two seconds? Not at all, does it matter.
It's only people stepping out onto the road without looking that gets on my nerves (ped wise). Too many people are relying purely on their hearing. Silly fools.
I don't hurry on shared paths. But oncoming peds (often runners or with dogs) on the wrong side of the path, and those who suddenly cross from the pedestrian side to the cycle side without looking are not only annoying but also dangerous.
As for people stepping on to the road without looking; I can usually spot them in advance because I expect them, and they usually get told to be careful.
-
As for people stepping on to the road without looking; I can usually spot them in advance because I expect them, and they usually get told to be careful.
In a polite and friendly manner, no doubt ;)
I just ring my bell. I'm a born again bell ringer now - after many years of never using one.
-
As for people stepping on to the road without looking; I can usually spot them in advance because I expect them, and they usually get told to be careful.
In a polite and friendly manner, no doubt ;)
Errr.. Yes. Something like "Careful!" Or just a friendly whistle.
I just ring my bell. I'm a born again bell ringer now - after many years of never using one.
I gave up on bells years ago. You can't hear them above the traffic and, if you do use them somewhere quiet like a shared path through a park, pedestrians on hearing the bell will either scowl at you as if you had no right to be there, or leap about doing the chicken dance.
I have two audible means of warning of approach built in - a voice and the ability to whistle, plus the Hard Stare function.
-
I find bells usually have the desired effect on towpaths. The British Waterways "two tings" campaign might have something to do with it. I'll either use them from a fair distance back (which reduces the chicken effect), or before blind bends - one of the few situations I think they're genuinely useful.
Other shared use paths get the usual mixed reactions - it's pot luck whether they'll move to single file, hop about like chickens, or take offence. I generally prefer to make obviously 'bike' noises with the brakes or gears from closer range, as that's usually seen as non-threatening (unless your brakes squeal, in which case they leap out of the way), but will use the bell before blind bends.
Voice I usually reserve for other cyclists - "passing on your right" - or horses etc.
It doesn't really matter that much anyway, as so many peds are going to miss auditory cues regardless, either through hearing loss, use of phones/music players or being distracted by their conversation.
-
(unless your brakes squeal, in which case they leap out of the way)
PeterM has brakes that match the pitch of my ring-tone - someone of your talents could probably harness this effect in some way!
-
I'm sure I read a post somewhere about giving up using a bell because it just makes pedestrians answer their phone... :D
-
I've had twitchers frantically grab their bird books and binoculars after hearing me ring my bell. Presumably in search of the lesser spotted bicycle bell bird... :D
I find that slowing down and freewheeling (unless I'm on fixed) does the trick. I do use those noisy Hope freehubs though.
-
The bells fell off my bikes so I just say "ring ring" loudly.
-
I gave up on bells years ago. You can't hear them above the traffic and, if you do use them somewhere quiet like a shared path through a park, pedestrians on hearing the bell will either scowl at you as if you had no right to be there, or leap about doing the chicken dance.
I'm with you on bells, I've come not to like them much either. A cheery good morning or somesuch seems to work much better for me, I tend to get lovely pedestrian interactions as a result.
-
A small tinkle from a distance doesn't startle a ped too much, whereas a big dong in their face is too much.
-
A small tinkle from a distance doesn't startle a ped too much, whereas a big dong in their face is too much.
:o ;D
-
A small tinkle from a distance doesn't startle a ped too much, whereas a big dong in their face is too much.
TMI
-
A big dong right behind you can be a bit shocking too.
-
Especially if it has a luminous nose.
-
I've tried a tinkle. - Got arrested.
I've tried a big dong in their face. - Got arrested. (But only after being dragged off to their place for a week)
-
This post sticks in my mind as it perfectly sums up the issue:
Me: *ding* *ding*
Ped: "You should say 'Hello' or 'Excuse me!'. Ringing a bell at me is just rude."
Me: "Hello" or "Excuse me"
Ped: "You should have a bell."
Me: *ding* "Hello" *ding* "Excuse me"
Ped: *no reaction at all*
It's mainly why I avoid as much interaction with pedestrians as possible.
-
Me: "Morning"
Particularly arsy ped: "You should have a bell."
Me: AIRZOUND
Me: "Like this?"
Ped: flabbergasted
-
I'm sure I read a post somewhere about giving up using a bell because it just makes pedestrians answer their phone... :D
Infrequently with my bell, it gives off the Big Ben hour chimes.
-
Me: "Morning"
Particularly arsy ped: "You should have a bell."
Me: AIRZOUND
Me: "Like this?"
Ped: flabbergasted
Me: Excuse me!
Pair of peds: Oh! Sorry, you should have rung your bell.
Me: I did, twice!
-
Ped: "Bell!"
Me: ringy ringy ringy.
Me: "Rang for ages but you two were engrossed in chat"
Ped: silent
-
I've had twitchers frantically grab their bird books and binoculars after hearing me ring my bell. Presumably in search of the lesser spotted bicycle bell bird... :D
Like this one?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bare-throated_Bellbird
-
Ringing the bell on the trike is of course made more hilarious by the way peds look round, and can't figure out where the noise is coming from, until they look DOWN....