Sometimes cyclists are the baddies....

[Wowbagger]

I've never been challenged about my lack of bell. If I want pedestrians to be aware of my existence, I should "Bike coming!" if I'm going reasonably quickly, or "Excuse me please."

[AndyK]

It's been said a hundred times - if you do this, there's a 50:50 chance they'll challenge why you haven't got a bell. We can't win!

Precisely. I passed a couple of elderly dog walkers on a shared use path a few weeks ago. I rang my bell from about thirty yards behind them, they turned, called their dogs over and made space for me to pass. As I did so one of the ladies said "Nice to hear a bell for a change, thank you".

So I will always ring the bell.

[hubner]

Again nobody's died or injured, but even I got a bit peed off and I'm a cyclist!

I know, but would it prompt you to start an anti-cyclists thread or phone a radio station?

In fact I instantly switch off now when I hear people moaning about cyclists on radio or TV - makes me puke - so what am I doing reading this thread?  I shall stop!  I'm out!  See you on the rest of the forum, everyone.

Me too, the anti-cyclist idiots are so ill-formed about cycling that there's no point trying to argue with them.

[Tewdric]

On the other hand..

[Wendy]

Again nobody's died or injured, but even I got a bit peed off and I'm a cyclist!

I know, but would it prompt you to start an anti-cyclists thread or phone a radio station?

In fact I instantly switch off now when I hear people moaning about cyclists on radio or TV - makes me puke - so what am I doing reading this thread?  I shall stop!  I'm out!  See you on the rest of the forum, everyone.

Me too, the anti-cyclist idiots are so ill-formed about cycling that there's no point trying to argue with them.

That's all true, most of the time they are.  In this case though, it's my experience that there's at least some justification.

p.s. I'm sad you're out Biggsy, I thought you made some excellent contributions here.

[nuttycyclist]

I hate how cyclists seem to think that ding ding = a given right to ride through without slowing down.

I don't see anyone here saying that. So it must be just some cyclists.

In my first reading of the response, I got the implication of that from AndyK's post (possibly due to some of the videos I've seen), but that might just be me reading it wrong.

...And if those you are trying to warn of your approach take no notice? Is it better to approach in silence and risk a collision - at whatever speed someone will be hurt - or is it better to do the best you can to let them know you are approaching? ....

But yes, it might be "some" cyclists who I've met when out walking/cycling and who seem to use the bell instead of the brake.

It's much safer, and more pleasant, for all for me to simply ride with care and slow down if necessary.   I walk relatively fast, and on narrow footpaths say "excuse me" if I want to pass somebody else; I take the same attitude when cycling.

It's been said a hundred times - if you do this, there's a 50:50 chance they'll challenge why you haven't got a bell. We can't win!

I was challenged once, when I was actually waiting to speak to somebody in the group as opposed to wanting to get past.   After several rounds of  "ring your bell if you want to get through, oh you don't have a bell do you" "I don't want to pass I'm waiting for kevin"  "ring your bell if you want to get through, oh you don't have a bell do you" "I don't want to pass I'm waiting for kevin"  "ring your bell if you want to get through, oh you don't have a bell do you" "I don't want to pass I'm waiting for kevin"  "ring your bell if you want to get through, oh you don't have a bell do you" "I don't want to pass I'm waiting for kevin"   I was grateful I was on the commuter which at that time had a traffic warning AirZound.  I leant on the button, and when they climbed back out of the trees I said "that's why I don't have a bell".   



I'm sticking with what I said upthread.   My vocal chords are good enough for shared use/segregated paths, and when on the road I either shout if required or possibly use an airzound as warning (not had it fitted in ages though as I got fed up with keep topping the air up but never using it).   Ultimately though, slow down and take avoiding action rather than sound a warning.

[Wendy]

I quite enjoyed this clip from tonight, it seems very appropriate given this discussion:

<a href="http://www.youtube.com/v/PV7GDc1DvgA&rel=1" target="_blank">http://www.youtube.com/v/PV7GDc1DvgA&rel=1</a>

[Honest John]

That's not really any different to a car driver telling you to get on the cycle path, and just as wrong. 

It's VERY different. Roads are not called car paths, or car lanes or car tracks, because they are not specifically for cars. CYCLE lanes CYCLE tracks and CYCLE paths on the other hand ARE specifically for cyclists.

+1

[Honest John]

It's VERY different. Roads are not called car paths, or car lanes or car tracks, because they are not specifically for cars. CYCLE lanes CYCLE tracks and CYCLE paths on the other hand ARE specifically for cyclists.

No it's not, skaters are also HPVs and are perfectly entitled to use the cycle lane.  I feel a lot less entitlement and much more tolerance will make your road and cycle lane sharing a much more pleasant and fair experience for everyone.  We saw that same sense of unfair entitlement when it came to the rowing club example.

It is not called an HPV Lane, it is called a CYCLE Lane. If you're not on a cycle don't be in it.

+1

[Honest John]

It is not called an HPV Lane, it is called a CYCLE Lane. If you're not on a cycle don't be in it.

Why are you so intolerant and unsharing? You are the same as the car drivers who tell you to get off the road.  You don't have any right to tell skaters to get out of the cycle lane, nor pedestrians either.  Waay too much sense of entitlement, IMO.

<sigh>

No, it's nothing like the same.

Cycle lanes are for cyclists only. Not for anyone else. Like pavements and footpaths are for pedestrians.

Roads are for all, with pedestrians, cyclists, horse-riders and, probably, rollerbladers being the only ones with a right to use them.

[Wendy]

Honest John, but where is the law banning inline and quad skaters from cycle lanes?  If you can't find that, it's only your opinion, and it's wrong.

Cycle lanes, for example especially in Hyde Park, are also the most appropriate place for skaters, since they are HPVs and move more similarly to cyclists than to pedestrians or cars.

[Wendy]

Oh, and skaters are fine on pavements too, quite legal.  It'd be rude to use them at any speed, but that's a different matter.

[Domestique]

Oh, and skaters are fine on pavements too, quite legal.  It'd be rude to use them at any speed, but that's a different matter.

Thats only because there are so few of you lot 

[Regulator]

Honest John, but where is the law banning inline and quad skaters from cycle lanes?  If you can't find that, it's only your opinion, and it's wrong.

I've already referred you to the relevant legislation.

Some cycle lanes/tracks/paths can be only for cyclists.  It is only those cycle lanes/tracks/paths which have been created from a pre-existing footpath which by default can be used by pedestrians.

[Wendy]

I've already referred you to the relevant legislation.

Some cycle lanes/tracks/paths can be only for cyclists.  It is only those cycle lanes/tracks/paths which have been created from a pre-existing footpath which by default can be used by pedestrians.

Have you proved that skaters aren't permitted?  I'm not seeing that.

In Hyde Park, per the code of conduct, the expectations of cyclists giving way to all other path users is very obvious.  Do you agree?

[Regulator]

I've already referred you to the relevant legislation.

Some cycle lanes/tracks/paths can be only for cyclists.  It is only those cycle lanes/tracks/paths which have been created from a pre-existing footpath which by default can be used by pedestrians.

Have you proved that skaters aren't permitted?  I'm not seeing that.

What are you blathering about?  I've given you the legislation.

In Hyde Park, per the code of conduct, the expectations of cyclists giving way to all other path users is very obvious.  Do you agree?

We all know that Royal Parks are subject to special rules and legislation (e.g. speed limits for cyclists).  Nobody has suggested otherwise.

Frankly, it seems clear that you are not going to change your view, despite being presented with evidence and will simply continue to put up straw man arguments.

I'm out of this thread...

[Wendy]

Additionally, all on road cycle lanes can be used by skaters since they are part of the public highway.  Any argument on that?

[Wendy]

More importantly, Regulator, why do you keep dismissing her experience of bad and rude cyclists as wrong/unjustified/imagined?  It matches my own experience and that of a number of other skaters, which is that it's more than a minor problem, and similar to what we cyclists get on the road.

[AndyK]

Additionally, all on road cycle lanes can be used by skaters since they are part of the public highway.  Any argument on that?

So I can drive in a Bus Lane then, because it is part of the public highway? Oh wait, no, I can't. 

[Wendy]

And on foot in a bus lane?  Instant fail of your argument via the right to pass and repass.

Contrary to Reg's assertions, he's not shown an example of a single cycle lane that is only for pedal cycles, and more importantly not a general status either.  For example, drivers are allowed to use mandatory cycle lanes on the road when they have to, and advisory ones at any time.

[AndyK]

And on foot in a bus lane?  Instant fail of your argument via the right to pass and repass.

Pass and repass is not the same as traveling along. You are trying ti justify cyclists being second class citizens on the only place actually designated to them. Maybe you're pissed off at your super injunction being made public this week, but seriously, you're wrong, accept it.