Over engineering in real life, solving lack of common sense by introducing a solution where the cyclist is paying.
I think the solution is nice for sure, but solving the wrong problem.
Over engineering in real life, solving lack of common sense by introducing a solution where the cyclist is paying.
I think the solution is nice for sure, but solving the wrong problem.
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
They are still readily available. I suspect that the only reason they aren’t standard anymore is to save 5 Euros on a new bike.
That guy should lead with the sound check. :)
when the alternative is "everyone doing the right thing" this solution starts to look like the pragmatic approach
Over-engineering? It's a fully mechanical bike bell that's made slightly differently. It's a very established and straightforward technology.
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.
In Singapore, cyclists are generally expected to use the pavement and share it with pedestrians.
Which, seems to me, is the actual problem that should be solved.
I've thought about it before and I think part of it is that the average cyclist here moves a lot slower because of the temperature and humidity.
When I put even an ounce of effort into my cycle I become a sweaty mess which can be a little antisocial depending on the situation
If you know of a simple technical solution to transform the entire world into the Netherlands, I'm all ears!
https://translate.kagi.com/nl.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geschiedeni...
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.
> Collective and popular protests helped by an oil crisis
Sounds neither simple nor technical.
Nope, but now the worldwide geopolitical situation is such that it might at least be feasible?
Yes, but again, what's your problem with additionally taking steps to make things safer? Unless you somehow see technologies such as this distracting from creating a safer environment. But this was developed by Skoda, so I doubt that if they hadn't done this, they would have lobbied for more bike lanes instead.
I dont have issues with taking additional steps to make things safer, I have an issue with this solution serving as a vehicle for the marketing of the inevitability of the problem (of cyclists and pedestrians sharing space) by a car manufacturer obviously interested in this problem continuing to exist.
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 agree you need to get more people commuting by bike. This is in itself creates a virtuous circle of safety. More cyclists means everyone pays more attention to them, meaning it becomes safer to cycle, meaning more people will cycle, repeat. (And ofcourse more political will etc.)
This is btw also why cyclist's rights organizations (e.g. fietsersbond in NL) should be _against_ mandatory use of helmets. Helmets make it less convenient to cycle and reduces perceived safety, in turn reducing the amount of cyclists and as a result _actually_ making cycling less safe (and the vicious circle ensues).
Even only suggesting that it would be beneficial to use a helmet has this effect apparently, hence the organizations are only willing to state that they are "not against the use of helmets".
Just an interesting second order effect I think. You want to always be careful to optimize for the absolute number of safe rides, and not solely for the relative number of safe rides that might significantly reduce the absolute number of safe rides.
>should be _against_ mandatory use of helmets. Helmets make it less convenient to cycle and reduces perceived safety, in turn reducing the amount of cyclists and as a result _actually_ making cycling less safe (and the vicious circle ensues).
Not mandatory and at your own risk IMO, but as a simple thought exercise on your argument, answer me this: if a car hits you on your bike or another cyclists knocks you off your bike and your head hits the concrete/kerb, are you gonna escape better off from the accident with or without wearing a helmet?
Spoiler alert from my GFs sister who works at an ER in Austria: helmeted patients walk away without permanent brain injury which she can't say the same for those involved in accidents without helmets. Helmets saving lives isn't a lobby issue, it's a medical fact.
People telling you to not wear a helmet because it somehow reduces safety through some convoluted spaghetti argument, must be off their rockers, when they clearly save lives at impacts. That's like saying governments should be against mandatory seatbelts and airbags in cars because their added safety encourages a cycle of unsafe driving leading to more accidents, and that without them divers would be forced to drive more carefully and lead to more safety.
It's perfectly fine to militate for the utopia of building of safe cycling infrastructure everywhere for everyone, but please let's not unnecessarily put people's lives at risk by promoting this FUD that helmets don't increase safety, just so people can literally die on this hill.
By all means, each individual should do of course as they see fit according to their desired risk profile of where they live and how they want to live their lives, just don't ask others to put their lives in danger in order to emulate the lifestyle where you live where the risks for not wearing a helmet are much smaller.
> 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.
>This only started to change in the 70s and 80s
Which was my entire point. City wide infrastructure rehauls were massively easier and cheaper back then than today. The amount of nimbyism and red tape has ballooned exponentially in that time span, let alone the cost. Even NL wouldn't be able to do that today if they wanted to had it not done that in the 70s.
It's a big stretch to say that the 70s and 80s was "from the start", when the preceding 30-40 years had seen increasingly car-friendly infrastructure policy and development.
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.
The problem is the cyclist trying to overtake pedestrian on sidewalk faster. The cyclist paying for it is correct person paying for it.
I say it as cyclist. Pedestrians have right to be absent minded in parks and on public sidewalks.
I have to agree here. The amount of cyclists I see with full over the ear headphones on-- if these guys are blarning tunes, there is no way they'll every hear the traffic around them. Extremely dangerous.
I completely disagree, this is just another level of safety.
If everything went perfectly everytime we wouldn't need any safety equipment, but things aren't always perfect.
What is the right problem that should be solved here?
Better segregation of cyclists and pedestrians into their own spaces. The bell shouldn't be something that you use regularly.
Depending on how much traffic there is, combining them is fine.
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.
Different folks have different preferences.
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.)
But some bikers probably also use anc headphones, no?
Seen cyclists with overear anc headphones cycling on the road in london. Absolutely mad.
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
You do you but as a cyclist you are super vulnerable to all manner of things and I'd never want to give up that kind of awareness.
If you listen carefully you can usually hear a cyclist behind you who may want to pass or is passing you, and having headphones probably makes that a lot harder
>I do that. This was never a problem
The most problematic people in traffic are never aware that they are the problem.
Do you also think drivers with windows blocking sounds and their stereo blasting are mad?
ofc they are
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.
Why are they walking around with ANC, you think? Maybe the sound of traffic (cars). They're also the ones posing the danger to cyclists and pedestrians. The solution is simple.
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.
"Not a simple problem to solve" feels like a bit of an understatement.
Should people with hearing impairment also avoid walking around?
People with a hearing impairment are usually not impairing one of their senses with content competing for their attention
Nope. They get special treatment; and that's fine.
I don't see how they can get "special treatment", the difference between someone who couldn't hear the bell because they cannot and someone who just wasn't paying enough attention to react in time isn't obvious without questioning them. Cyclists should simply learn to share shared infrastructure and be careful when passing people instead, because they can't know if that person is aware of them in time and going to react in a predictable way.
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.
>>If cars are liable for running over cyclists then cyclists must be liable for running over pedestrians.
They are though(at least here in the UK) - a guy was convinced of manslaughter for hitting a pedestrian on a bike just last month. In general the rule is that the person in charge of a bigger/heavier vehicle is the responsible party in almost all collisions.
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.
On the other hand, I hate it when I'm on my bike on a bike path, and someone walks their dog, leash fully extended across the bike path, they are looking down on their phone and wearing headphones. Absolute selfishness.
On bike paths, totally agree with you. On shared paths, nobody owes you that speed.
...what speed? No one mentioned any speed.
Fines. No one should cross roads/paths randomly, with or without headphones.
One large fine, and people will learn.
No, they won't, punishment is never better than good design that incentivises and directs how something ought to be used.
Jaywalking is even a misdemeanor in some areas of the USA, it doesn't stop it from happening at all.
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.
Agreed, however, what do you think about my 'dream bicycle bell'?
I replaced my bell recently because mine had developed a form of 'tourettes' after a bit of plastic fell off. So I did survey the marketplace for something 'more me'.
This made me think about what the ideal bell should be. I reckon that you should be able to buy tuned bells, as in A - G with 440hz 'C' being in there somewhere. Maybe there could be different colours of the rainbow for each frequency.
This would be quite tuneful if I was riding with family or friends, with them also having a tuned bell on their bicycles.
Obviously no use for penetrating noise cancelling headphones, however, I don't think these are an issue. If someone is zoned out on headphones then it is on them if they have no spacial awareness. If they don't hear the bell, then that is on them.
I also think big auto is patronising, to think they have anything to offer the cyclist apart from death and pollution. What would the car dependent ones know about shared path etiquette?
Nowadays the biggest danger to me on shared paths are the Uber Eats delivery guys with their electric motorbikes. Early evenings can be quite risky with those zombies, particularly within half a mile of a McDonalds. They pose a true 'kinetic' risk that the jogger wearing headphones does not.
which part would you consider overengineered?
Eh, it's pragmatic.
It's replacing a problem you can't solve (human stupidity), with one you can (a better bell).
Human stupidity? As in allowing too much noise in the cities to the extend that people need to protect their minds?
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.
Stockholm is a very quiet city, people still wear noise-cancelling headphones all the time.
Why can't the cyclists slow down when they see that there's a human obstacle in front of them?
> 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.
I think that’s probably quite a selfish world view (and also quite arrogant to claim your own view is hard to argue against - of course you would find it hard to argue against, that is moot…)
When there is infrastructure to support all 3 kinds of users, it seems a lot more equitable for everyone to use the space cooperatively.
I absolutely agree one should give way to more vulnerable road users, but that all 3 can have better outcomes (safety, speed of journey, efficiency etc) it all use it cooperatively and conscientiously.
To labour the point, on shared cycle and pedestrian paths with a line down the middle, does a bell ring combined with slowing down to a safe speed not seem like an appropriate warning?
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.
> and I give priority to pedestrians when I'm riding my bike
Even when you "actually want to get somewhere"?
> they just don't have time for that?
They for sure have time for that. When I drive my car can't use that as an excuse.
There is a number of differences between a car and a bike, including how pedestrians react to them. Also you probably (hopefully) don't drive your car on narrow sidewalks which in some cases is unavoidable for bikes in cities.
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.
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.
There is easy excuse, people expect other people to be rational, and to slow down a bit. Not to ride downhill at full speed.
I heard "human obstacle" last time in carmagedon!
Cyclists can slow down when there is an obstacle in front of them. But they cannot teleport away when a pedestrian runs into the side of the bike.
We do slow down.
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.