Shared use paths - Bells ringing ignored...

Commuting, Day rides, Audax, Incidents, etc.
Bmblbzzz
Posts: 3845
Joined: 18 May 2012, 7:56pm
Location: From here to there.

Re: Shared use paths - Bells ringing ignored...

Postby Bmblbzzz » 21 Jul 2016, 8:26pm

On ringing a bell being seen as "Get out of my way!" -- ring and slow down and make it clear you're not forcing a way through. They have to go together, not alternatives.

david7591
Posts: 200
Joined: 29 Dec 2015, 11:02pm

Re: Shared use paths - Bells ringing ignored...

Postby david7591 » 21 Jul 2016, 9:27pm

Try speaking loudly. I'm forced to do that due to lack of a bell. It works. Often gives the pedestrian a bit of a shock to unexpectedly hear a voice behind them. Oh, and always cycle safely so that you can stop and avoid a collision.

User avatar
squeaker
Posts: 3764
Joined: 12 Jan 2007, 11:43pm
Location: Sussex

Re: Shared use paths - Bells ringing ignored...

Postby squeaker » 22 Jul 2016, 9:20am

IME the 'problem' with shared use paths is just that: shared use. Something frequently ignored by dog 'walkers', commuting (AKA in a hurry) cyclists and family pedestrian groups. Arguably better than walking next to / cycling on a busy urban road, but far from ideal.
"42"

Bmblbzzz
Posts: 3845
Joined: 18 May 2012, 7:56pm
Location: From here to there.

Re: Shared use paths - Bells ringing ignored...

Postby Bmblbzzz » 22 Jul 2016, 9:51am

I was looking for an image of the "two rings" poster on some cycle paths and towpaths, but couldn't find one. Some of you must have seen it?

User avatar
squeaker
Posts: 3764
Joined: 12 Jan 2007, 11:43pm
Location: Sussex

Re: Shared use paths - Bells ringing ignored...

Postby squeaker » 22 Jul 2016, 9:59am

IIRC it was 'two tings'...
"42"

Postboxer
Posts: 1753
Joined: 24 Jul 2013, 5:19pm

Re: Shared use paths - Bells ringing ignored...

Postby Postboxer » 22 Jul 2016, 10:10am

Image

Is this it?

User avatar
mjr
Posts: 16726
Joined: 20 Jun 2011, 7:06pm
Location: Norfolk or Somerset, mostly
Contact:

Re: Shared use paths - Bells ringing ignored...

Postby mjr » 22 Jul 2016, 10:37am

squeaker wrote:IIRC it was 'two tings'...

Image
MJR, mostly pedalling 3-speed roadsters. KL+West Norfolk BUG incl social easy rides http://www.klwnbug.co.uk
All the above is CC-By-SA and no other implied copyright license to Cycle magazine.

Bmblbzzz
Posts: 3845
Joined: 18 May 2012, 7:56pm
Location: From here to there.

Re: Shared use paths - Bells ringing ignored...

Postby Bmblbzzz » 22 Jul 2016, 11:26am

That's the one! :D

Trump is a completely different sort of bell...

reohn2
Posts: 40711
Joined: 26 Jun 2009, 8:21pm

Re: Shared use paths - Bells ringing ignored...

Postby reohn2 » 22 Jul 2016, 11:36am

Bmblbzzz wrote:That's the one! :D

Trump is a completely different sort of bell...


But he's got a big clapper,noise,noise,and more noise.......
-----------------------------------------------------------

Adam S
Posts: 606
Joined: 15 Nov 2012, 8:53pm

Re: Shared use paths - Bells ringing ignored...

Postby Adam S » 22 Jul 2016, 8:23pm

mjr wrote:brringers are more easily recognised (as well as allowing the operator more expressiveness), then temple bells (which I find easier to fit on road bike stems), then the cheap pingers (which seem to need at least a fast double-strike before most people react).

I'm not sure what a temple bell is but I think I agree. I too prefer the traditional brringers. I like the sound of the continental two tone bells but it isn't readily recognised as a bike bell sound by people in this country

Andy3460
Posts: 48
Joined: 5 Mar 2016, 7:45pm

Re: Shared use paths - Bells ringing ignored...

Postby Andy3460 » 23 Jul 2016, 5:58am

Just a general musing here, but ...

On a shared use path. You expect pedestrians to wander about and get in your way. On a cycle path, which is clearly marked next to a pedestrian path. Could they be more dangerous because we are less expecting the pedestrian to think. "Look at the pretty flower," and walk straight in front of us?

BTW. I used to be a triangle player in a reggae band. I didn't do much. I'd just stand at the back an ting.

I'm a trendy consumer. Just look at my XT1068 using hovercraft full of eels.

User avatar
squeaker
Posts: 3764
Joined: 12 Jan 2007, 11:43pm
Location: Sussex

Re: Shared use paths - Bells ringing ignored...

Postby squeaker » 23 Jul 2016, 10:03am

Andy3460 wrote:On a shared use path. You expect pedestrians to wander about and get in your way. On a cycle path, which is clearly marked next to a pedestrian path. Could they be more dangerous because we are less expecting the pedestrian to think. "Look at the pretty flower," and walk straight in front of us?
Which is partly why NCN2 between Shoreham-by-Sea and Lancing was changed to shared use. Paint is not a physical barrier, nor one that dogs and small children understand, nor some adults come to that :roll:
"42"

User avatar
RickH
Posts: 5324
Joined: 5 Mar 2012, 6:39pm
Location: Horwich, Lancs.

Re: Shared use paths - Bells ringing ignored...

Postby RickH » 23 Jul 2016, 2:04pm

I've found the bell on the tandem rarely gets any response. People seem to pick up on our approach from my talking to my stoker (telling her what is happening) or the grind/squeal from application of the disc brakes, once slowing by simply freewheeling is no longer sufficient., is pretty much guaranteed to get attention. If not a polite "excuse us" as we approach usually works OK. :)

Rick.

jgurney
Posts: 1100
Joined: 10 May 2009, 8:34am

Re: Shared use paths - Bells ringing ignored...

Postby jgurney » 23 Jul 2016, 2:08pm

squeaker wrote: Paint is not a physical barrier, nor one that dogs and small children understand, nor some adults come to that


An adult can reasonably be expected to do so, and to prevent their dogs or small children from crossing the painted line just as they prevent them crossing the kerb and going onto the carriageway of a general-purpose road. There is no difference between the two: their function is identical.

There seems to be an assumption in many posts here that the presence or absence of motor vehicles makes a difference to the rights and responsibilities of other road users. However I have not seen this stated anywhere authoritative. Surely pedestrians and cyclists using a "shared path" and those using a 'shared road' such as a country lane with no footway have exactly the same obligations towards each other and and are subject to exactly the same rules?

Tangled Metal
Posts: 7667
Joined: 13 Feb 2015, 8:32pm

Re: Shared use paths - Bells ringing ignored...

Postby Tangled Metal » 23 Jul 2016, 9:43pm

There's a difference between.what people can do and what they actually do. A parent knows to stop a child going into the road over the kerb "barrier". Big incentive, cars and death. Crossing the white line "barrier" between pedestrian side to cyclist's side isn't considered as critical to the kid's welfare. It doesn't happen. These paths with cyclists on one.side of a line and pedestrians on the other are really just mixed use paths. Nobody will convince me to the contrary.

It's worse than that when this principle is applied to roads. Cycle lanes consisting of.a white line.between car side and cycling side are not cycle lanes at all. Every single one is driven on by.cars with impunity. They are.roads and you need to ride.on them just as you would on a normal stretch of road.

IMHO different modes of transportation (motorised, human powered machines and pedestrians) should all have separate routes. You can not have pedestrians on routes for cyclists. You cannot have cycles safely riding on roads with cars. Well you can with the last case but make no mistake about that white line marking a cycle path on the road. It does not make it a cycle path.

Was there a target for the amount of cycle paths in a council's area once? Was that when all those white line cycle paths on roads appeared? If so that type of cycle path shouldn't he counted.