I'm curious if this happens in other areas? These morons will get right behind you and ring their bell, I'm certain it's a game to them to annoy people. Fair enough if you ring your bell with distance between you and pedestrian, but doing it right behind people is both pointless and frustrating..
Cyclists Using Walkways and Ringing Bell Right behind Pedestrians
ipiok on 01/08/2018 - 07:50
Comments
- 1
- 2
bikies
Sounds like a bunch of people in high spirits, not something that is happening constantly. Did it cause you any harm?
You are meant to ring your bell when passing a pedestrian if you are using the same path, (mod: personal attack edited).
So they conveniently rang their bell to warn you whilst laughing at a funny joke which was unrelated to you.
Bet they would be the first ones to complain if this happens to them on the road
Better cyclist be on the footpath than on the road.
The absolute speed difference and percentage difference is smaller between pedestrians and bikes, than bikes and cars. Not to mention that both pedestrians and cyclists tire out, whereas cars do not have endurance issues, especially going up hills.I just don't get the "high horse" mentality cyclists get, do they not realise how easy it is to mangle their fragile bodies with heavy machinery like automobiles?
It can still be pretty nasty on footpaths; in my area there are a couple of cyclists that fly off the bike only lane onto the footpath at 30-40km/hm to avoid a red light, and expect the pedestrians to dive out of the way for them because they rang their bell.
Not excited to see what happens when someone doesn't move.
True.
But in such a case, its always the fault of the cyclist. When on the road, the blame could be shifted on the car driver even if the cyclist was the one escalating the safety risk or hazard.I guess the root-cause is poor education and reinforcement from a young age to adult. Everyone is taught to be careless, and focus only on "their" road without consideration for others. No amount of helmets and airbags are going to patch things up; when its the people actively and passively causing the incident.
Pedestrian's are not supposed to move when a cyclist rings their bell. Pedestrians are supposed to keep left on the footpath and cyclists are supposed to overtake on the right. A cyclist rings their bell to warn you they are approaching so that the pedestrian doesn't suddenly move into the path of the cyclist.
@jelko: I'm the first to say that I prefer cyclists to be on the footpath, given their lack of speed and fragility compared to cars the road.
But with current infrastructure, peds on the left and bikes on the right, doesnt leave any room for peds coming in the opposite direction.
There arent enough proper bike paths, and footpaths themselves are too narrow.
Typical lack of town planning and foresight by those deciding upon our infrastructure
Agree.i ride my bike sometimes but the amount of dicks riding at 20kmh in peak hour with a gut hanging out and no intention of assisting the flow of traffic piss me off
It's a bit ironic like that.
On the footpath, cyclists complain about pedestrians being too slow and in their way. On the road, the vehicle drivers complain that cyclists are too slow and in their way.One would expect that cyclists "know how it feels" and shouldn't expect pedestrians on the footpath to automatically get out of the way.
The sooner we all learn to respect each other and realise there are going to be others sharing the footpath and roads, the better. Ringing a bell or honking horns only serves to annoy the receiver.
this should be the end of this thread.
Yes, please.
+100000
Ringing a bell or honking horns only serves to annoy the receiver.
But I've been yelled at for NOT using my bell when I pass certain people on shared pathways. So we can't really win can we? Some people hate the bell, others expect it.
Then of course there's those who:
- Are completely oblivious to the bell even if you are ringing it constantly as you approach
- STOP dead when they hear a bell, or turn around to look, or better yet scramble in random directionsIf we aren't meant to ring our bell why are there always signs on shared pathways telling us to do so?
I think there's a big problem over here in the way the horns (and now bells) are used and the general association that people make when they hear it.
In Asia, where there's traffic everywhere, the horn is used all the time and correctly taken as a warning for everyone's benefit only. No offence is taken.
Over here, the person on the receiving end of a horn/bell often associates it with a quasi F U. (And in a lot of cases, that is the correct assumption!) But it makes the people who actually use it correctly a potential target if there's a misinterpretation of the intention. And that's where our problems start.
Yeah this reply really should be higher up. I was amazed the first time I visited China by how loosely everyone spams their horn. Like bobbified has said it is used completely differently over there and people don't get so offended as they do in Australia, I've had people flip me the bird after I honked them (even though they were in the wrong).
@Your Friend: I did a driver knowledge test in China like 10 years ago, I remember theres a specific rule indicating that you must use the horn to warn other drivers when you are turning into a major lane. So in China no one really take it as an offence unless spamming it like crazy
The common factor here are cyclists.
Seems to me if you remove cyclists, both problems get solved.
Pedestrians don't share the roads with car drivers and vice versa cars don't use footpaths
Yeah that seems to work out just fine.
@HighAndDry: So according to your logic. People shouldn't be allowed to ride their bicycles anywhere at all or the government should create dedicated bicycle only infrastructure all over Australia.
@Your Friend: Your suggestion is exactly what they should do in high density areas - it's something i'd be happy to spend tax dollars on. Obviously elsewhere they have to share the road.
Why stop at removing cyclists, Remove all humans, problem solved.
I’m a big fan of you H&D. Don’t let the nay sayers here leave you high and dry.
Haha, don't tempt me. I'm enough of a misanthrope as it is.
Get a room guys
@HighAndDry: Unsure why you're getting downvoted, your admission of misanthropy is one on the very rare cases I've seen you be correct. +1 from me.
"On the footpath, cyclists complain about pedestrians being too slow and in their way."
No, they don't. Stop making shit up. The whole cyclists vs everyone else arguments that happen in this country are so backwards to the rest of the world. It's time you grow the (profanity) up and stop being a whinging cvnt.
I'm a cyclist and if I ever find myself on a footpath (eg. there's a running track near my house which is shared by walkers/joggers and cyclists), I'll ring the bell if people are walking side by side and taking up both halves of the path, leaving no room to get past.
This is the same for all cyclists. They can easily overtake people when the opposite side of the path is clear. If you're taking up both sides while talking to your mate, a friendly ring of the bell will allow me to get through.
The real problem, and the reason many people hate cyclists is that a small number choose to ride on the footpath when they are not supposed to.
OK to ride on the footpath in Queensland.
Note: Ride = share the footpath
I hate cyclists as much as the next driver but here in WA cyclists are allowed on the footpaths.
Where do we draw the line on what's okay and what's not okay? What if I said I hate liberals/police/feminists/murderers as much as the next person? We should be allowed to judge a person on an activity they are performing and not be branded as being prejudice or racist.
Why the down votes? I am very pro bike but in NSW it is illegal to use the footpath, so when people ride on the footpath it makes all bike riders look bad, to some people.
@dave999: A few bikes on the footpath is not the real problem, there are a whole heap of reasons. Wearing lycra, being all sweaty at the cafe, being on the roads, not being on the roads, riding through red lights, stopping for red lights, filtering through to the front, staying in line with the traffic, beating the traffic, slowing the traffic, not giving way to cars, following the road rules (ie turning right from the right lane) and so it goes on.
@Lawrage:
Same here in QLD, but still I’d prefer them on the footpath than on the roads if they must annoy someone with their hobby I’d rather it be a pedestrian than the flow of traffic@Nick939: Sure, you can judge an individual on their activity, but you can't judge a group of individuals based on the perceived problems of a few that appear to fit the stereotype.
Some cyclists never find themselves on a shared path. They get together and block the road but when the cars in front are slow in traffic they change formation and get ahead of you and then block the road. There is always a group of cyclists who would ride on the highway in early morning instead of the shared path right next to the highway that no one is using
I am one of those cyclists. You cant ride side to side with your mates and have a chat on a shared pathway. If there's no social aspect to a ride I might as well drive my car!
But OK for cyclists to ride two abreast and take up most of the road, leaving no room for cars to get past?
Yes it is ok. Two abreast, three when overtaking is the law.
No, they don't. Stop making shit up.
Millions have been spent on dedicated cycling lanes in Sydney CBD, yet you've still got a whole bunch of cyclists who insist on riding on the roads because other cyclists are "too slow". That gives you a pretty good idea of the entitlement they feel.
Open your eyes and look around at the number of cyclists who ring their bells expecting pedestrians to get out of their way. Pyrmont bridge is just one example. They placed cops there at one stage to issue fines selfish idiots who have no respect for anyone else other than themselves. And that is just one example.
You can see the number of cyclists who zoom through crowds of people in the city. There's obviously no consideration for pedestrian safety! They should be slowing down enough to be able to avoid hitting any pedestrians that move about the footpath - this is no different to the expectation from drivers when cyclists are on the road.
It's not all cyclists - most seem to be considerate of others, but there's enough bad eggs for us to easily notice.
This exactly.
Try noticing the ones that do the right thing, it’s better for your sanity.
@Euphemistic:
I actually do notice the good. As a motorcycle rider, I have a habit of nodding to drivers, riders and cyclists that do the right thing. I usually give a bit of a wave to the drivers that stop at zebra crossings for me to cross. If Im walking down the footpath and a car is turning into a driveway, i always stop and wave them through first so they're not holding up the drivers behind them while i walk across the driveway. I know what it's like to be on both sides.I have to say that I've lost count of the number of cyclists outside my office that power through zebra crossings as we step off the footpath to cross the road. I smoke outside quite a few times a day and I just shake my head at the number of near misses I see.
I think your overly focused on bad cyclist much like the media over focuses on ethnic crime
I work I Sydney CBD, cyclist use bike paths… where there are bike paths… unfortunately it hasn't been all completed, they have to constantly switch to the road.
Sydney CBD is too busy for footpath riders, I've seen bikes on footpaths in the CBD, they're can't move, they usually give up and walk their bike, or do that standing balancing moving slightly forward motion.
I do ride, and I see heaps of others ride on the footpath on the outer parts of Sydney CBD, 99% are fine they move slowly. A big issue for all is where the share path starts and end isn't clear.
Pyrmont bridge is a total unorganised clusterf*ck… No lanes for anyone, tourists walking in erratic directions and taking photos. It's a shared area for walkers and cyclists, do you expect cyclists to simply not ring the bell and let accidents happen? Don't be so stupid. Bells exist on a bike for a reason.
Stop trying to spread hate against cyclists, you're no better than the tabloids that do the exact same thing.
It's a shared area for walkers and cyclists, do you expect cyclists to simply not ring the bell and let accidents happen?
Ringing the bell or not isn't the point! I expect cyclists to acknowledge that it's a SHARED area with lots of people, including tourists, and to SLOW the f$%k DOWN!
No lanes for anyone
There shouldn't need to be marked lanes.. you ride to the conditions and respect other users! Not just zoom close by the crowds of people at high speed!
You can't demand consideration from drivers when you're on the road and then have absolutely no consideration for others when it suits you. It goes both ways because lots of those pedestrians are also drivers. Get that through your thick head!
So the cyclists that want to use the roads because other cyclists are too slow are 'entitled' but motorists like yourself who hate cyclists because they are 'too slow' are somehow virtuous and correct?
but motorists like yourself who hate cyclists
I actually don't hate cyclists because I accept the fact that they're there on the road and we all need to share. Hating on them on the road does no-one any good. I never beep my horn and I always make sure I give them plenty of room. I do whatever I can to try and avoid putting their lives in danger any more than they're already in.
What I'm saying is that the cyclists (the ones that haven't already) should adopt the same attitude with pedestrians. How would you feel if I came up to you on the road while you're cycling and beeped my horn at you, expecting you to move out of my way? Why can't cyclists move cautiously around pedestrians the same way they expect cars to do for them?
On the footpath, cyclists complain about pedestrians being too slow and in their way
I've never heard this before…
Not sure why the downvotes your statement is accurate
Because they are cyclists. They love to cycle on roads, taking that away from them is like taking ice cream away from a 8 year old. The fact is that roads were designed for horses and now vehicles. Cycling is primarily for leisure, not transport. Otherwise get a motorcycle. Why is it that they don't have to pay for a licence, that means they can cross red lights with cameras never being able to pick them up because they don't have a plate. There is no incentive to obey the law while cycling.
@jared444: Bicycles are vehicles according to the law. The majority of my road cycling is for transport. Riding on the roads is not fun in my book, but a perfectly reasonable way to get to where you are going.
There is plenty of incentive to obey the law while cycling, it is called death. You'll probably find that most cyclist deaths and crashes are not due to the cyclist breaking a rule, but a motorist doing the wrong thing (like 80%).
Sure, there are some cyclists that run red lights, but I'd bet most of them aren't causing anyone else to come to a screaming halt like in a movie car chase. A cyclist that gets it wrong is likely only going to injure them self and scratch a panel or two.
There are way more cars that break the rules and cause death and destruction to others. Most cyclists already have a car licence and have a registered car that is parked up while they are riding. Most cyclists would be willing to pay for some form of rego if it would shut up the whingers and make it safer to ride, but it wont. A rego scheme would probably cost the taxpayer more than it raised and not make a lick of difference.
If you already have a car stop being selfish and slowing down traffic. We don't need to get late to work because of your lifestyle choices.
@jared444: Its all the cars that cause traffic, not bicycles, be thankful that there are some cyclists out there reducing the amount of cars in the carpark at the red light. If there were no cars, you'd barely need traffic lights.
Edit: If I take my car to work, all I do is increase traffic. If I cycle, the route I use slows no cars down AT ALL. It is mostly sharepath and some quiet local roads except for about 300m of a busy road that is wide enough that cars can pass me safely without being held up.
Maybe in your area, but in large metro cities bikes don't use the footpath. I'd agree with you if it's your sample case but in most big cities in Aus that isn't the case. They take up whole lanes. And instead of stopping when buses stop they throw themselves into middle lanes and rarely stop at red lights unless in a group.
And I'm sorry, most people don't have the opportunity to bike all the way to work as property prices are too high where they work and don't have the time to ride on a bike for three hours.
And you still haven't answered whether you agree with a licence to be on the road. What about insurance?
@jared444: completely disagree with licences or rego for bikes but if it does give some form of legitimacy to a cyclist on the road then it’s worth a try. Do I need to register my mountain bike that doesn’t ride on roads except maybe in the forests? Does a 5yo need a licence to accompany me to the park when there is no footpath?
I get it, you think bikes are toys and shouldn’t be on the road. Well, it’s not going to change, and as fuel prices increase more bike are going to get out there. Get used to it.
Nope, just more fuel efficient cars will happen or more motorcycles. Why don't you go to South America with double digit inflation and tell me what you see there…
face palm you know a lot of dirt bikes and quad bikes don't have rego.
What do you do for a living?
face palm you know a lot of dirt bikes and quad bikes don't have rego.
And a lot of them are riding illegally.
@jared444: LOL is right! That's how these things work. Nitpicking - unless you can agree that compromise is better and recognising that different people want different things and need to work together in a society.
@jared444: doesn’t matter. I might be a professional internet poster intent on arguing the smaller points of anything I can find.
I’m a cyclist though.
But you are literally meant to ring your bell when you coming up to a pedestrians, its the whole point of it being mandatory to have a bell…
People just complain about cyclists no matter what they do lol
That's like saying people who are behind slow cars should keep on honking the horn. There's a time and place for it.
A car being slow in front of another car is not the same as a bike being behind someone walking slow…massive speed difference.
No, the principle is the same, someone doing something unnecessary that isn't warranted. You shouldnt beep because someone is slow. You shouldn't ring constantly for the sake of ringing. It's dangerous and creates noise pollution.
Pedestrians don't usually walk around with rear view mirrors, and bikes are pretty quiet. So its not the same situation.
I think you need to read my last comment again rather than sidestepping on what I said.
The problem is when pedestrians walk side by side blocking the footpath or they walk on the wrong side.
I always ring my bell with enough warning and they still don't hear me. I sometimes have to come to a stop and wait for them to realise im there.
I generally ring my bell about 2 seconds before I pass a pedestrian to warn them not to make a sudden move like some people tend to do - flap their arms about or take a side-step to take a photo…
The footpath on storey bridge Brisbane have little figures painted showing walking directions yet some people still do the opposite and wonder why I stop in front of them telling them to keep left.
welcome to the 'western' human condition, almost a complete lack of empathy, humility and understanding of anything other than their own perspective.
I imagine a lot of cyclists would be used to pedestrians with headphones in and would have difficulty hearing the bell from a distance.
That said, the ones without headphones would generally hear a bike and move to the left, so no bell needed.
I don't know what kind of bikes you've been around, but they're silent. Due to the whole no engine thing.
Road/chain noise? A silent bike would be incredibly energy efficient!
*good bikes are very silent
It doesn't have to be silent, just quiet. Many pedestrians fail to hear the bell as I approach, I just keep ringing until I get some sort of reaction so that I know they're aware of me.
I think the perception of bells has improved; I'm much more likely to get a thanks than a curse on the Melbourne bike paths than I was ten years ago.
There's a bike path near my house, with lane markers on the footpath. Regardless if the walker is on the far left of the path, bike riders will always ring their bell to notify them
That's a good thing! Sounds like you live in a place full of smart people who pay attention to what they are doing :)
yes, i'd rather they ring their bell than swoop past my side out of a sudden
i'd rather they ring their bell than swoop past my side out of a sudden.
Or worse,they accidentally crash into you,because you move slightly just as they are racing up alongside pedestrian. I very rarely ride bicycle, but am regularly a pedestrian in a shared area/path with bikes. I recently was on the other side of things, rode my bike for 1st time in years, and I rang bell for the safety of the people ahead, then as I passed, tried to remember to say "thanks" to them as I sped past.I would forgoe using bell,,, only IF there was a large enough gap that I could pass safely, without going so close to pedestrian as where I would hit them if they step sidewards slightly.
Sounds like what OP is feeling though, is they are feeling bullied by some bicyvle riders, using there bell to be like 'get the f outa my way' , instead of just using bell for safety to alert person ahead.
I am especially appreciative when small kids riding up behind ring bell, where I will usually move right off path, onto the grass, as they would possibly get badly hurt from hitting into me with bicycle. I would feel terrible with empathy if some kid learning to ride was to accidentally hit me and be injured .Am I talking to myself when I say I don't have a problem with cyclist using a bell as stated in my original post… It's the one's that ring the bell right next to you, with no prior warning…. Even if it isn't to annoy you, it's serves no purpose to ring the bell once you're already next to the pedestrian and can only lead me to believe people doing this are taking the piss.
@randolpg: this is a just common human error, just like when car drivers use turn signals way too late to actually be of use to anyone, cyclist make the same mistake with bells because there are no standard rules so everyone does it differently, imo a bell should be rung 15 meters back and then again at the 3-4 meter mark
@dylan345: Or, as is very likely, OP simply didn't hear the earlier ringing (happens all the time) and got all offended about them ringing too late even though that's not what happened at all.
Which state is this in? The laws about riding on footpaths are different in each state. I am in Victoria and am not supposed to ride on the path.
Not a footpath, it's about a shared path
I bet you would have a whinge thread up if the cyclist didn't use their bell either
- 1
- 2
Other than what areas? Is likely the cyclist rang the bell forget back and you didn't hear them.. Pedestrians can be surprisingly deaf…