This seems to be part of a type of brand marketing where a brand claims it has invented something, but the only thing that ever exists of significant economic value is the attention raised by the promo video / article. Not the thing/service.
I love these types of videos because they create this fiction of how design happens, where people sit around a table with drawings and or come up with beautiful mock-ups (the motion sickness glasses is a good example). Often, a lot of design decisions are super obvious and don't require a lot of sweat and collaboration to come up with, but in videos they're made to appear very difficult as it presents better. And other things are super messy, but you're not going to show that as it's hard to communicate.
Yeah a lot of this is a very very cleaned up, performative version of design process. It's like its own subgenre. Original thinking is wild, feral, messy, often solo tho heavily influenced by the context around you. None of that presents well.
However I bristle at the idea that core design decisions are usually super obvious, even when the end results are. Not sure this is even your point so forgive the tangent if not, but this issue is my particular hill to die on, it's 100% the single biggest gap in understanding that I see between those that regularly engage in original creative work vs those who do not.
People see something obvious and say "That's simple, I could have come up with that!" But that's all hindsight, like saying "I could have bought bitcoin in 2010!" It's not even wrong, it's answering an entirely different question of capability, not probability.
The question is would you have come up with that, were you tasked with the problem and put in the same context? I'd estimate for most great-but-simple inventions, it's not many people who could plausibly say that, because so much of what we bring to bear on problems comes from our own histories and unique perspectives & influences, not to mention talents and predilections.
This distinction between could vs would is core to understanding creative output, especially the ideas that are the simplest to use or understand. The delta between understanding vs coming up with there is often vast; simple things are often the hardest things of all to conceive.
I'm in total agreement regarding some designs that seem obvious later but really took several iterations to reach. There's definitely hindsight bias when a design works so well that it feels obvious.
My point was more that I've seen product demos where parts of a product were presented as having been pored over painstakingly when in reality it was decided on day one that it would work that way. However, because it's a prominent feature, it feels cheap to show the reality, so I get that for demos there's a bit of storytelling that goes into it so the audience feels like it was a revelation.
For UX that I've designed myself, I have definitely found that a lot of the great ones required a ton of iteration and almost "courage" to go against my initial bright ideas and look at things from a different perspective. It often required taking away elements that I thought were absolutely required at first but later realized made more sense to go without. If someone were to look at the final result, they would definitely think "Well, obviously that's how it should work." But more likely they'd have go through a similar journey that I did to come up with it if they hadn't seen the solution.
In a way it's like finding out how a magic trick worked. It's only obvious in retrospect.
A magic trick is a good way to put it, especially for laypeople. I see your point and agree, it's always hard to know going in which ideas you're going to one-shot (and be slightly embarrassed about having one-shotted) and which only come from the courage to kill early darlings and continue down the road of uncertainty.
We're fortunate if we even get that latter opportunity, given most want to take the easy path and cargo cult someone else's idea. The thing I've noticed is that the hard path to continue the exploration often gives the cargo cult answer but with a nuance or two for one's context that make all the difference. I'm curious if you have experienced that as well.
> People see something obvious and say "That's simple, I could have come up with that!"
That's the problem with user interface design as a career. It takes a lot of effort to create simple to understand and simple to use design, and then when users see them, they see it is simple and think it must have been easy to do. Most programmers tend to make programs for themselves and other technical people and has horrible design. The classic corollary example I like is when Apple came up with MP3 players and marketed as 'It can hold 1000 songs' instead of the current marketing at the time 'It has has 1GB of storage'. Technical folks would not be satisfied with 1000 songs becuase they would be doing back of the math calculations on how low of a bitrate you have to get, in order to fit 1k songs in a given space... while the other 95% of the population doesn't want to do any math, and if even if they did, they don't know.. or at least back then, didn't know what a GB was, or how many megabytes an MP3 consumed....
Indeed. UI/UX is actually a pretty shitty career unless you are good enough to regularly pull rabbits out of your hat. At the low end it's just drawing boxes and using someone else's tricks in a system that isn't even the codebase. At the mid end you get the codebase and might occasionally solve interesting problems, but you'll rarely get the recognition and influence equal to its value. Only at the high end do you start getting the rewards, but they tend not to last very long because people quickly adapt to seeing your solutions as obvious.
It's why designers, and creatives more generally, try to cultivate a mystique around themselves, even(/especially?) when they're only mid. The truth is creative work is a lot more playful than it is mysterious, but play is not valued, only mystery is. This leaves many creatives stuck in tension between their internal and external identities.
Any innovation benefiting cyclists and coming from the auto industry is a way to move attention away from the fact that cars are the most dangerous thing on the road.
Jokes on them for the wasted resources. If they don’t intend to market, I hope someone will. Where I live cyclists use ANC headphones all the time, and I’m tired of the near misses.
Student cyclists that ignore the rules and wear ANC (or even large headphones) should be fined more often.
Why is significant economic value the metric for success?
Skoda publishes the research and design openly (no patent, no product for sale), to solve a real problem (increase in bike-related accidents from noise cancelling headphones), to ensure that the safety outcome can be spread as quickly and easily as possible.
We should be celebrating companies that open source material findings related to safety, not lambasting them for not exploiting it for maximum value.
it feels disingenuous to lump this in with most of the other items you listed.
i think the slightly less cynical interpretation of this is that it's not marketing, it's an employee morale booster.
some skoda employees got to have fun with this. just like the amazon engineers got to have fun building drones for a while. letting the engineers out to play every now and then is cheaper than just giving raises. the shiny marketing videos gives the people who worked on the project something to show off to their friends.
i can't imagine the actual marketing value here really does anything for the company.
Coincidentally, I bought a 12v car horn yesterday with the intent of wiring it into my ebike's power supply with a little button on my handlebars.
Not because of other cyclists or pedestrians wearing (anc) headphones but because modern cars are so heavily sound-proofed they don't hear a bicycle bell anymore. A recent incident with an inattentive taxi driver in a brand new EV nearly flattening me prompted me to want to pursue this.
I'm still waiting for my cheap AliExpress dc-to-dc step down converter but otherwise I have everything I need and I think it should work. The horn module itself is definitely loud enough: I connected it to a 12v power supply at my desk and jumped out of my chair.
Yeas ago I motorcycled a lot, all over the world. I escalated to an air horn and hi-viz. But I pretty quickly realized that these made no tangible difference to the behavior of larger vehicle drivers. So I ended up for later vehicles with a stock horn and hi-viz only for heavy rain.
These days our family cycles a lot for commuting. It’s really easy to observe that people in vehicles treat us far better if we look like humans, wearing normal street clothes, rather than wearing high-viz or, far worse, cycling gear.
The bike bell is for polite notice, not alarming. The best alarm system you have is your voice, which is variable volume and tone. For ultimate effect slap the panels of cars, as it is very loud inside the vehicle.
Slapping panels in the US will occasionally get people trying to fight you, as I've had happen. Not really sure what a good solution to that looks like short of cultural changes.
As a pedestrian I slapped a panel of a slow car that failed to yield to me at a crossing. The driver glared at me and looked ready to reverse into me. I never slapped any panel any more.
Sadly I had to kick a few cars that thought they could run me off my motorcycle. Worked every time. All of them didn't look out the window or they would have looked right into my face. Yelling and horn did absolutely nothing.
Most of them were extremely apologetic or even shocked (as if I appeared from thin air). None of them were angry for scratching their door. Some people are just lost in thought it seems...
> or even shocked (as if I appeared from thin air)
Motorcyclists are invisible. Never rely on others seeing you, ride as if they're an obstacle you have to navigate.
You can hide a whole truck behind the A-pillar of modern cars, let alone a motorcycle. At certain angles, human eyes have complete blind spots that we're not aware of because our brain filters them out. Motorcycles fit perfectly into those.
Never hover in people's blind spots. Pass quickly or stay back. Do not drive parallel with another vehicle. Goes for cars too.
When approaching another car perpendicularly (like an intersection), remember that humans lose depth perception because their nose covers one of the eyes. A driver literally cannot tell how far you are. Our usual proxy is the distance between headlights. Motorcyles have 1 headlight so this heuristic doesn't work, but we don't realize that it doesn't.
Yup. If you don't have armor around you the only real defense is to assume you are invisible unless you know they've seen you or can't help but see you (for example, going in the traffic direction in front of a stopped car that's waiting to go--they're looking at the cars, they'll see anything else coming along.) Doesn't matter if you have wheels or feet under you, you still are invisible.
Oh I know. They look at me while turning left cutting me off.
Maybe I need a bigger bike, the 2cyl 400cc is particularly invisible. ;)
Best one was a woman who cut me off doing her left turn. I high-beamed her and honked. She put her hands in front of her face and came to a dead stop in my lane directly in front of me. I was already braking before I honked. Nothing happened. I stopped wondering and just assume everyone is out to kill me.
> I high-beamed her and honked. She put her hands in front of her face and came to a dead stop in my lane directly in front of me.
Personally I skip the honking and high beams. Just perform evasive action assuming driver will continue on their current path at roughly their current speed. Swerving behind their path of travel usually works great.
Spooked drivers behave erratically. Very dangerous.
So far I've had 0 serious incidents in ~8 years of riding. A couple close calls when I was being an idiot. So I think my approach is working :)
Honking is more for the people behind/around me. I also don't want to be hit by inattentive people following me to closely.
May I ask where you are riding? I am currently in Bavaria. The danger level is usually higher after the winter. Drivers need to re-accustom themselves to sharing the road with two wheeled riders.
Evasive action could be even more dangerous in cities. In my experience being able to come to a stop without hitting anything is even better.
Lot's of dead people had the right of way. Ride safe, I agree. I also had 0 accidents so far in 30 years. But you still experience new things you hadn't thought would be an issue.
San Francisco Bay Area. I never got into motorcycling back in Europe although the roads are lovely, the short riding season felt like a deterrent. Also the extremely long process to get a license.
Here in CA it was almost scary easy to get M certified.
When I was commuting 60k/day on my bike in shitty suburban conditions, I used one of these instead - you get limited use per trip, but you can always fill it up with a CO2 cylinder/bike pump:
That’s a crappy pressure vessel holding 350ml of 80psi air, for about 100J of stored energy. I’m not entirely sure I’d be comfortable with that, especially anywhere with my face in the line of fire it it fails.
Those two pressure vessels are highly engineered and are wrapped with materials with pretty good tensile strength. Also, they’re made out of materials (fabric and rubber) that absorb a decent amount of energy when they tear and that don’t fragment. And the whole assembly usually depressurizes slowly.
Having personally blown up beverage bottles by overpressurizing them (be very very careful doing this!), when they go, they go violently.
I've blown up beverage bottles for fun. Hooking an air compressor to a 2L bottle and exploding it makes a satisfyingly loud boom.
*We had a valve on the air line so we could be at a safe distance when pressurizing. Be very careful. It's unpredictable exactly at which point they'll blow. Sometimes they hold full pressure for a couple seconds and then go.*
When we did it, it always went off on its own. It's been a long time since I did it, but I think the longest it took would've been on the order of 30 seconds. Really makes a person jump when it finally goes.
Because the danger posed by a fairly low energy pressure vessel is highly related to it's failure mode. That's why OSHA has rules about what compressed air pipes can be made of--it's not about the pressure resistance, it's about what will happen if one fails.
It's likewise why most military boom is mostly not actually boom. With artillery you obviously need a very tough case, but standard aircraft-dropped iron bombs are mostly that: iron. They don't need that kind of strength except specialized bunker-busters, they're built that way because for a given weight of bomb you'll do more damage by throwing bits of bomb casing from a smaller charge than from a bigger charge without the fragments.
If this is a modern bike, 80psi is way too high. 50psi is sufficient and will give you a more comfortable ride as well as higher efficiency on real-world surfaces.
80+psi is for old-style road bikes with narrow 23mm tires. Modern bikes (even road bikes for racing) don't use these any more; 28mm is the minimum these days.
Not to be pendantic (but to be pendantic) 80psi is the correct pressure for 28mm tires ridden briskly on good roads. At least according to ye olde Silca tire pressure calculator. Back in the day when folks ran 23mm tires they would typically run above 100psi (though that may not have been optimal...).
That calculator is wrong. Cycling people have been overinflating their tires for ages (as well as using too-narrow tires), with the assumption that the ground is perfectly smooth. Lower pressures yield higher efficiency (and better comfort) on rougher surfaces.
You're overinflating your tires. A lower pressure will increase your speed and efficiency unless you're riding in a velodrome. Here's a video about this:
The video's result for both tires they tested was peak efficiency at 5 bar. They had a really coarse sampling of a whole bar, so that works out to a pressure of 65–80 psi.
It's a soda bottle - it fits in your water bottle holder, and you can replace it for a couple of bucks if it fails. 80 psi is pretty low pressure (typical narrow tires are 100-120) and the bottle itself is very low mass, so the fabric around the bottle should ensure safety if it bursts.
IIRC these came out in the early-mid 90s; a bike messenger trick at the time was to fasten the horn to your handlebars with velcro, so you could take it off and hold it near a car window when triggering it.
I suppose I should maybe not worry about 80 psi so much. An ordinary bottle of soda on a moderately warm day is around 80psi. The energy is 1/2 * pressure * head space (roughly), and head space is minimal. But you can chill it in the fridge, then open it and quickly pour out half, then close it and let it warm up, and you may still be near 80 psi, and I’ve never heard of anyone getting maimed by an exploding soda bottle.
An hour and a bit each way, took about as much time as public transit and better than a coffee for waking up. A good road bike goes a long way, and the suburbs suck for road sharing but are great for not having to stop at many lights.
I wonder if one of those recently-emerging Chinese electric blowers that sub for canned air would generate enough air volume to sound the horn usefully. Possibly not quickly enough.
I did that, but I used battery - couldn't figure out how to hook up to the e-bike's 50v electrical system (plus the DC-DC converter with high enough current...)
So I am using LiPo 3S, 2200mAh. Works like a charm. I keep it at its storage voltage (3.7-3.8v per cell), and it hardly drained the battery (there is no paracitic drain). Whole thing was like $20.
Some locales are downright itching for a reason to road rage so I don’t blame you. One thing I have to say about being a motorcyclist is that our residents in California are so considerate and have never once mistreated me for beeping, lane splitting/filtering, stalling my bike at a green light, etc.
At least they’re forward about it - I’ve lost count of how many bike accessories claimed to be USB C, but they only charge when connected to their specialized cable that converts from USB A to C.
Double-sided USB-C connections require a handshake before sending voltage. USB-A ports can have the 5v line active at all times. Cheap USB C gadgets often don't make the handshake, they just use it as a 5V input, necessitating an A to C cable.
If you add 5.1kΩ pulldown resistors on the CC lines for USB-C, you can get the standard 5V without a handshake although current may be limited by some chargers without negotiation.
I think you're overstating this. The "handshake" is purely 2 simple resistors correctly installed. The problem is a lot of folks do it wrong for various reasons, most likely never testing with anything more than type a to type c cables.
One of the many deficiencies of usb-c (who knows what power your cable supports, charger supports, if you accessory will charge, of it will connect at all)
There is no handshake, all that's needed are two 5.1 kΩ pulldown resistors. By omitting them the manufacturer saved all of about 0.1c and made their device incompatible with compliant usb-c chargers.
> because modern cars are so heavily sound-proofed they don't hear a bicycle bell anymore
Agreed. I had a supercharged V8 Jaguar that I could barely hear.
And my Audi has a system that actually pumps engine noise into the cabin, so you can hear that, but not the outside world.
The Fire Department I was at was looking at "thumpers" - augmentations to sirens that make cars in front of them vibrate (a la those people playing too much bass too loud).
Not just sound proofing, but inattentiveness. I've been behind people on semi-rural quiet roads with my 40,000lb fire engine behind them, lights, sirens, and airhorns, and they've driven for a mile or two completely oblivious.
on the rare occasions where I need to loudly indicate my presence to a motor vehicle I wouldn't really want to be moving my hands - if I have time to move a hand to a horn I probably have time to brake/manouvre instead.
Generally in those situations I shout really loudly at the driver, and in general they seem to hear me
Aside: folks living near bike paths where this happens are going to suffer. I don't know what the solution is, but increasing volume to defeat increasing sound-proofing seems like a recipe for noise pollution.
I had a digital bell from aliexpress on my winter commuter because pogies on the bars prevented a typical dinger. It was very annoying and very effective; my wife referred to it as "the friend maker".
LOL. I put the loudest 12V train/air horn I could buy on my 60 mph escooter with a 72V to 12V buck converter and a motorcycle handlebar button. It was pretty easy to install. (I added a fuse too.) Stupid motorized vehicle drivers get the horn of doom.
I'm very sceptical of their claims that ~780Hz is in some way special, especially the way they represent it graphically. Playing a frequency sweep while wearing WH-1000XM3 headphones, I don't notice any particular drop-off there.
Near where I live, heavy goods vehicles are fitted with reversing indicators that make a "cshh cshh cshh" sound i.e. pulsed white-noise. White noise like that is the hardest for ANC to cancel. Sample: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A3Wt1_51EVA
Right? This feels like an "arms race" similar to scraping vs. anti-scraping; countermeasures will be developed, likely due to the action of actors entirely disconnected from what you're doing, but to block something else in the ecosystem... and you'll need to re-engineer your approach entirely. Rinse and repeat.
(The amount of innovation in anti-anti-scraping that's resulted from "sneaker bots" - automated scalping of limited-edition shoe releases - is astounding, and somewhat relevant here in how an environment can become adversarial in ways that impact broad ecosystems. I suppose the equivalent here would be environmental ads that seek to penetrate noise-cancellation in a similar way.)
I suppose, though, that all this is good news for a company that wants to turn your bicycle bell into a subscription product!
I think there's a broader indication of an arms race between noise cancellation systems and things that want to be heard, like advertising. And this just-happening-to-exist bandpass that the DuoBell is depending on could easily become collateral damage in that fight.
I was going to make a joke about advertisers working in some kind of ultrasonic modulation to their audio so it breaks ANC (I'm aware this wouldn't really work) but then thought, whats more likely, advertisers doing that, or advertisers partnering with 80% of ANC chip makers to just let them by-pass with specific tone markers...
Then we'll be hacking our headphones with specific 3d printed clip-ons that involve a particular brand of coffee filters that happen to attenuate the "clear freq" enough for the headphones to miss it.
The construction site next door is using those vehicles, and they're also a lot more pleasant throughout the day. It's easier to tune out white noise than beeping. The first cshh is a little louder than the others, which is a nice design touch.
Speak for yourself, I can tune out a steady beep much easier than the sound of a seagull being strangled to death. (That's what the ones around here sound like anyway.)
On a more serious note: the loud beeping backup alarms were DESIGNED to be annoying and difficult to miss. I would not be surprised in the least if a study showed these "less annoying" backup alarms correlating to a higher number of children being run over by reversing vehicles.
There have been studies and those resulted in the less annoying backup sounds. These sounds are essentially harsh white noise, which has one significant difference to the beeping: it's level drops off differently with distance, meaning you can blast it louder and people who are really in the wrong spot will notice better it means them, while people who are not meant will not be annoyed or fatigued by it. Two noise sources combine different than two tonal sources and the human ear can locate broadband sources better than single tones.
This was developed especially for use in backup heavy environments like harbors where workers started ignoring constant beeps.
There's also another difference: beeps can reflect coherently off of surfaces, causing directionality confusion in a dense environment. White noise is much less likely to have odd interference patterns, maximizing our ability to localize the sound.
Me too, as soon as I saw this I put on my Anker Soundcore noise-cancelling earbuds and fired up my AAS Multiphonics CV-3 software synthesizer. Sweeping a sine oscillator, there was zero difference in perceived volume in the 750-780 Hz range.
Through acoustic testing, the research team identified a narrow frequency band – a “safety gap” – capable of penetrating ANC headphone filters. This range lies between 750 and 780 Hz.
Is there a standard specifying this "safety band"? Is whatever Apple does for AirPods a de-facto standard?
On my wh-1000xm2, wh-1000xm3, wf-1000xm4 and lastly wf-1000xm5, there is a quite high frequency pitch (usually coincides with some public transport beeps, and some accidental squeaking of doors) that toggles ANC to transparent mode automatically. I remember reading something about this on Sony's support website.
My XM4's always do that at the beeps from the cash register, although I always attributed that to their volume rather than frequency. My theory was that they refuse to produce sound loud enough to cancel the beeps for safety reasons.
I suspect as much too. If there's a failure to match the noise perfectly then the headphones are just going be be blasting a loud sound into your ears. And if it matches the frequency correctly but lines up with the sound instead of being out of phase, then it's acting as an amplifier!
That diagram is pure marketing nonsense. The real chart is on page 10 of their paper[1]. It shows a modest ~3dB less attenuation around 800Hz across several brands.
As expected ANC headphones cancel less noise at low frequencies so I guess the 780Hz is a trade off between high enough frequency to be a bell and low enough frequency to get attenuated a little bit less than high frequencies.
The research paper is pretty poor quality and this is mainly a marketing exercise.
Anecdotally, bells have always come through fairly clearly for me. They filter out lower tones, not higher + sine waves. Nothing about this adds up to more than any normal $5 bell, especially rotating ones which hammer repeatedly.
In order for e.g. a horn to work you need enough time that the driver processes the situation and decides the horn will communicate something AND enough time for the pedestrian or whatever to process that and react to it. Generally it's a lot easier just to press the brake, and more importantly be travelling at a speed and in a manner where the brake is sufficient.
Structurally, we'd be much better off reducing conflicts between the different tiers of users. I.e. properly segregated infrastructure for each class of vehicle.
A horn or bell is mostly for telling other people "hey I'm here, stay out of my way and dont suddenly cross into my path"
My opinion as a cyclist is that I should basically only be using my bell on pedestrians when the pedestrians are wandering onto the bike lane. If im cycling through a shared space, I find it extremely rude to ring the bell, because it feels like I'm telling people to get out of my way, but they have just as much right to a shared path as I do. Some cyclists ring their bells because they're worried a pedestrian might suddenly turn into their path, but I think if one is concerned about that, it's a sign youre cycling too fast, and should just slow down.
With cars, I will sometimes proactively ring my bell at them if I think they're not sufficiently aware enough of me though.
>My opinion as a cyclist is that I should basically only be using my bell on pedestrians when the pedestrians are wandering onto the bike lane. If im cycling through a shared space, I find it extremely rude to ring the bell, because it feels like I'm telling people to get out of my way, but they have just as much right to a shared path as I do.
The culture around this varies a lot. I'm in Melbourne, Australia. Virtually all bike paths are "shared", and many have signs telling you to ring your bell when approaching pedestrians - you're not telling them to move out of the way, you're telling them that you're there.
In practice, I tend to use one ding to mean "I'm here" and multiple dings to mean "you're on the wrong side of the path and need to move".
But in no situation do I rely on a bike bell to avoid an accident.
I've always wanted two horns in my car: one that toots with a smile and a tip of the hat, and one that heralds your pending demise. It sounds like Australia cycle bell culture does that with short vs. long bell ding-a-lings.
Which is kind of how it has worked with cars, except I find that more and more cars have a style of horn that's hard to control with the necessary precision. Maybe this is Canadian culture but I get very anxious that my horn will honk for a millisecond too long and the poor victim will think I'm angry at them.
I can corroborate this finding -- I think the horn switch is just a logic-level digital switch going into one or more MCUs somewhere, subjected to all manner of latency and (probably) CANBUS jitter. It's not great. Trying to send Morse, or even a quick 'toot toot' results in a garbled mangled mess, and I find that very annoying. My early cars & motorbike had what felt like direct, switched control over power to the horn, those were great to use. I've debated installing a dedicated pushbutton rated for the amperage or at least controlling a solenoid somewhere that would power the horn.
As an experiment, I've found that you can reliably detect the presence of crummy horn control by trying to pulse the horn for the shortest amount of time possible. The shorter my push on the horn button gets, the more likely it is that the timing will feel wrong somehow, or the horn doesn't even sound at all.
I've definitely tried friendly beeps at friends or neighbors and it came out sounding like an angry honk.
Reminds me of a mini-course I took on sound design. Lots of exercises in trying to squeeze expression out of a limited palette. Not too different from LEDs, but of course we have different cultural references for audio. Neat subject.
Agreed! It's a small but satisfying interaction to have that coordination and unspoken communication with other drivers at a 4-way stop.
I've taught my kids when crossing the street to make eye contact with drivers to make sure they see you. Drivers with smartphones unfortunately add to the challenge.
my own experience is that in the city the bell was to alert people that I think aren't paying attention to me and may be about to step into the bike lane. 100% like you said, I'm letting someone know I'm there
Now that I moved to the country with a comprehensive rails-to-trail network, I thank all the cyclists that use the bell to let me know they're coming up behind me. What really irks me is the dudes going 30+mph silently coming up behind me, passing less than 2' from my dog (who is at my side) when there's PLENTY of room to give me space. No, we can't hear them coming all the time. Yes, it's startling, rude, and dangerous for all of us.
In Germany it's illegal to drive bikes that assist beyond 28km/h (about 20mph) in what are true bike paths (which can be built as lanes! And, notably, they can be marked as virtual-lane-shared (pictogram side by side with a vertical divider) or as true shared (pictogram above and below at a horizontal divider), if pedestrians are also allowed to use them.
An ancient gas-e-bike rating is allowed on them outside city limits but iirc those bikes are exceedingly rare since even before e-bikes became truly mainstream.
Which, IMO is important. Even if they aren't in your way, it can help avoid an accident. If you're on any sort of nicer, well maintained road bike, it's going to be near silent. I've startled pedestrians on mine, so I now ring my bell every time I'm approaching someone, not as a "get out of my way" signal but more of a "hey! I'm coming up behind you, don't get startled and jump into my path"
Generally though, if its a particularly crowded path, I just ride in the road. In stop and go city traffic I'm usually going as fast if not faster than traffic anyway.
Your right and I think local culture gets the difference between the escalating "move over! I've rung my bell 5 times already" vs. the light courtesy "coming up from behind" ring
I prefer to slow down and actually just say hello to them, they'll usually say sorry and I'm back on my way again. Just ringing a bell, or worse a horn, scares them and they need to turn round to figure out where you are and whether you're about to squash them. I don't feel I have the right to do that to someone just out enjoying a peaceful walk.
On the other hand, I've been angered by dog owners when running who just take up the entire pavement. A couple of weeks ago, I had one guy coming towards me force me to come to a complete stop when I was running flat out, because he couldn't be bothered to control his dogs. He was in the centre of the pavement, and the 2 dogs were at the extreme edges with tight enough leads between him and the dogs, so it'd have tripped me up if I'd tried to jump them. He knew full well I was heading that way, but in the 10 seconds since we had made eye contact, he was clearly determined not to reign his dogs in, and it was only when I was stopped and so he had to reign them in to continuing walking past that I was able to keep using the pavement.
>Just ringing a bell, or worse a horn, scares them and they need to turn round to figure out where you are and whether you're about to squash them. I don't feel I have the right to do that to someone just out enjoying a peaceful walk.
Yes, it's very context-dependent. I'm going to behave very differently in an area where there are hundreds of cyclists every hour compared to a place where there might be one or fewer.
The real trick with bell ringing is to try to get the distance right. Too far away and they won't hear. Too close and it might startle them, and they won't have enough time to react properly.
It's legally mandated in my city so I guess the polite thing to do is ring a bell, you know, just stick to the protocol, for everyone's sake. A bell however seems at least as likely to startle someone into behaving erratically as not.
As far as the pedestrian's safety is concerned what matters is either giving them a wide berth or slowing right down when passing.
Whether on a bike or not I'm sick of all the modern world's beeping and ringing and buzzing and blaring and if I'm wearing noise cancelling headphones that means I don't want to hear it. Don't tell you're being annoying for my own good because you aren't.
First reaction to warning tone should always be to (safely!) stop and assess.
Considering that the persons involved can't be expected to not be deaf, or functionally so via e.g. headphones, and thus you always have to be able to brake anyways. Running onto a driving lane (be it bikes or cars doesn't matter) without looking especially if the direction you didn't look just gave an audible warning is always reckless.
My solution to this is that I ring my bell when I'm far from people, usually twice while I'm still a fair way away. It just gets pedestrians conscious that there's a bike around, while also being far enough away that it's not going to surprise them and I don't think they assume it's an aggressive bell.
My least favourite is when a cyclist speeds past and shouts "on ya right" (I'm in Australia) but they shout it when they're so close that there's no chance of hearing and understanding in time.
That's how I do it too. I'll tap bell once (and let the ring sustain) when I'm about ~5 seconds from overtaking them so people know there's something coming up behind them, and the sustained sound tells them how fast it's coming. This is especially important with runners, who are prone to suddenly take a U-turn if they're at the end of their route.
Pedestrians regularly wave acknowledgement or even say "thank you." Some other cyclists (especially on e-bikes) just blast by with no warning.
The problem with bells is that they aren't very directional. It's hard for my brain to figure out from which direction the sound is coming from. Someone speaking "on your left" is much more directional, and it includes important context as to what the warning is about.
I saw one recently where the cyclist shouted out something like, "ON YOUR LEFT!" and all it did was startle the crap out of a jogger who spun around into the path of the bicycle. Luckily just a close call. That cyclist's "warnings", with no time for pedestrians to react properly, were really just a game of Russian roulette. (And really rude, as you say).
Shouting that while traveling too fast is indeed incorrect, but a polite "on your left" or bell while traveling an appropriate speed is considered good behavior to avoid surprising pedestrians.
This again depends on the jurisdiction and kind of path you're on. Where I grew up, if it's not separated into bicyclist & pedestrian lanes, bikes yield to pedestrians.
On US forest trails, the general rule is bikes yield to pedestrians and everyone yields to horses.
(Obviously pedestrians walking in bicycle lanes are doing it wrong.)
Outside of some stage actors and drill sergeants, there are probably few people who can project their voices well enough that a vocal warning is useful.
You're either traveling slow enough that it's not necessary (and why yell at people if you have to?), or are too far away for someone to understand and get a bearing on who isn't already looking at you.
A bell is still rude in a shared space but used correctly, a decent one can at least be effective.
I just don't think that is even a little bit true, or at least it's something that is very culturally specific and thus not generally applicable.
I have a friendly sounding bell I use from an appropriate distance (and I can modulate the volume), and I routinely have people give a light wave to show they heard. In addition, the biggest complaint about cyclists in local social media is about them passing without notice.
If you just bell once or twice, and don't aggressively keep ringing, I'd never consider a bicycle bell in a shared space rude. I even consider it good manners, though as others have said, that varies between cultures.
Being visually impaired, though, I'm grateful for cyclists who use their bell. It's immediately clear. For some reason, my brain takes slightly longer to process someone yelling "on your left!" or similar, than just a quick "ring ring".
Can you list some examples? When I lived in Chicago it was quite common for cyclists to shout this on the long lakefront trail, I wonder if that's the case there too.
> § 11-1512. Bicycles on sidewalks. (a) A person propelling a bicycle upon and along a sidewalk, or across a roadway upon and along a crosswalk, shall yield the right of way to any pedestrian and shall give audible signal before overtaking and passing such pedestrian.
No idea if the lakefront trail is classified as a sidewalk but there are at least some cases in Illinois where either a bell or a "on your left" are legally mandatory.
> A horn or bell is mostly for telling other people "hey I'm here, stay out of my way and dont suddenly cross into my path"
This. I only use the bell on bike paths, too. Sometimes it feels like a game of pac-man, where baddies will wander into my path from all directions and in all kinds of ways. Cars doing a right turn, zombies staring into phones, people walking backwards (!), zombies staring into phones walking backwards, it doesn't end.
FWIW, it's better to stop and talk to the dog. Dogs don't really want to bite you, most will just chase you and don't really even know why. If you stop and confront them, they are confused and don't know what to do next.
Get off the bike on the side opposite of the dog and keep the bike between you and the dog just in case, if you are afraid.
That is an issue on bike paths that are build inside a sidewalk, the cycling path is usually build using a smoother surface than the one designed for pedestrians. Plus it sometimes has a brighter paint.
I am pretty sure most people don't realize it but they are inconciously attracted to it. It just feels better walking on it.
That's an issue on any bike path in the US, even if it's a fire road in the middle of nowhere. I bet there are people walking their dogs or checking Instagram on the single track course that is used for the Red Bull Rampage.
Yeah, it happens on sidewalks, bike trails, mixed use trails, and dedicated bike lanes. If anything, dedicated bike lanes are the worst because they get errant pedestrians and cars.
No, every bike path in a city inevitably has crossings or is laid out next to a sidewalk. People just do their random-walk thing (Brownian motion, really, sometimes) and wander into the bike path.
Sometimes you clearly see more people on the bike paths than on the regular sidewalks. And I definitely attribute that to its smoother nature compared to the fake cobbles you have in many places, amplifyied if there is a baby stroller in the mix.
> Some cyclists ring their bells because they're worried a pedestrian might suddenly turn into their path,
This is wrong - on mixed use paths, it is customary and proper to announce "on your left" when passing, and a bell is a nice alternative. Even cycling slowly pedestrians can do some very erratic things, and moreover are very surprised when cyclists suddenly appear on their left (and may do something dumb in surprise!).
> This is wrong - on mixed use paths, it is customary and proper to announce "on your left" when passing
This is neither customarily nor regulatory uniform. There are mixed-use trails near me where bells are required. There are some trails where most people use a bell, some trails where nobody uses a bell, and some where there is a mix.
In my personal experience, the ratio of bikes to pedestrians and the purpose of the trail greatly affects how people tend to handle this.
On the bike trail it is crucial to do a shoulder check when changing lanes. Some people get "in the zone" and ignore all other traffic in the singular pursuit of the shortest times. They will get very very angry if you get in front of them, if they spot you at all instead of just slamming into your rear tire at full speed.
It's essential on narrow shared paths e.g. a canal towpath, when you're approaching a pedestrian from behind in order to avoid startling them when you pass.
Most people walking the canal towpath around here know this, runners in particular will sometimes be give a wave or visual acknowledgement they've heard you without turning around.
> If im cycling through a shared space, I find it extremely rude to ring the bell, because it feels like I'm telling people to get out of my way, but they have just as much right to a shared path as I do.
It’s certainly rude to ring the bell in a aggressive manner, but many bells are capable of producing much softer, more polite sounds.
In super busy old European capitals I find that people increasingly just ride around with speakers playing a constant tune at a reasonable volume, a massive improvement on dense streets full of varyingly sober people.
> In super busy old European capitals I find that people increasingly just ride around with speakers playing a constant tune at a reasonable volume, a massive improvement on dense streets full of varyingly sober people.
I sometimes do that. It helps not having music that could be described as aggressive. I often use reggae.
However it means you need a speaker charged so it is not something I have ready everytime I use my bicycle, nor do I want to carry it everyday when leaving the bike attached somewhere so it can't be the goto solution.
I still think that ringing bells at people is a little rude, regardless of the tone. Like imagine if you were at the grocery store, blocking the isle and someone lightly chimed a bell at you instead of just saying "excuse me".
IMO if I'm in a dense pedestrian zone and I can't go around people and I can't communicate by voice, it means I'm going too fast.
It's just cultural. If there's a cultural expectation of the ring/honk it's not rude. e.g. in India people will honk as a form of active group flock behaviour but foreigners will interpret it as everyone saying "get out of my way"; but in some European countries I have seen that people use the bell (much less noisy than the typical Indian street) and it's got the same meaning. In Hawaii, if you ever honk at someone, you're going to have a fight on your hands. In San Francisco, if you honk at someone and you're on Bush Street it means you're trying to help the traffic light change (it's a team effort) but anywhere else you get anything from a gun drawn, to a brake check, to a wave in apology for missing the light by being on the phone.
Overall, cultural expectations are everything here so it's best to just "when in Rome, do as Romans do".
It was a not-particularly-amusing joke that people honk because doing so helps the light change. It doesn’t, of course, but I used to work at a building at the intersection of Bush and Sansome (I think), the Standard Oil Building, and every day at 5 PM the honking would put Bombay to shame.
I don't agree with the former, a bell is not rude if you actuate it in advance from far enough. I do that if I see people about to cross my path but looking somewhere else or if there are kids wandering because I know that kids tend to be imprevisible, are often not very aware of their surrounding and have a smaller field of view. If you are just a handful of meters from them, it is just too late to ring a bell, you should have slowed down already anyway.
There is nothing to be done against old people using noise so I just prepare to stop.
On shared use trails, I suspect your voice might give out (especially given the headphone status of most pedestrians) and a bicycle bell is less ambiguous than a voice, which could be a fast walker, a runner, or a bicyclist.
Here the pedestrian-bicycle problems are much more likely to occur on dedicated bike paths than in pedestrian zones (where bicyclists must ride at walking speed). Usually a pedestrian nonchalantly crossing the bike path at an angle without paying the slightest attention to what they're doing.
The same people tend to ignore the bell. They're in their own world. I usually shout at them to move in that case. A friend of mine instead bought a loud horn connected to a can of compressed gas, which commands attention much more easily than a puny little bell. Works on car drivers, too.
Pedestrians still exist in non dense zones. It seems there's no way to win. I've been told that I should use a bell because vocal addresses are too startling.
Now if there's not enough room to pass safely and silently I completely slow to the pedestrians speed and THEN calmly say excuse me. But I'm convinced that there is just no universally correct way to do it. If you pass people in any way whatsoever, sooner or later someone is going to get mad about it.
> Now if there's not enough room to pass safely and silently I completely slow to the pedestrians speed and THEN calmly say excuse me. But I'm convinced that there is just no universally correct way to do it.
Anyone who is mad that you politely passed them at a safe speed is just too sensitive about these things. You're totally fine there. But "room to pass safely and silently" could still piss people off depending on your speed and distance.
The conclusion I came to is that being totally fine there is independent from whether people could get pissed off about a thing. I try operate in a safe and reasonable manner. I'm sure some people are pissed, as some people will always be.
> imagine if you were at the grocery store, blocking the isle and someone lightly chimed a bell at you instead of just saying "excuse me"
Greetings from Sweden, where some people will verbally announce "honk honk" (tuut tuut) while avoiding eye contact – then bump into your leg with their grocery cart.
If you're in a grocery store and aren't maintaining enough situational awareness to preemptively move out of somebody's way, I file that as rude. I'm sure the ingredients on that box of slop are very engaging, but you should still be able to see and hear a shopping car rolling up on you.
I'm also in Europe, and I always just either say the equivalent in the local language, or just use english. Even in the smallest most remote villages, you'd be pretty hard pressed to find someone who doesn't know the word "sorry".
I’ve found that speaking the wrong language often results in people freezing up as they process what I just said to them, that’s often counterproductive.
Thank you, I'm a cyclist too and I always try to respect pedestrians' space, and it really pisses me off when people don't. In many cities cycling on pavement is not allowed, yet some cyclists do it... which I'd be fine with, provided they understand that they're doing something they're not supposed to be doing and that they have no priority. But when they're invading pedestrian space like that AND ring the bell as if people were supposed to be making way for them, I literally want to throw a stick in their wheels.
> But when they're invading pedestrian space like that AND ring the bell as if people were supposed to be making way for them
Honestly, I prefer that over those damn electric scooters. Most people who ride them are complete morons. They don't pay attention, ride into traffic, go at high speeds and don't care about anyone except themselves. I’ve even been hit by one.
YES! I get the point of mobility and all that but I wish someone would give a ticket to some of those a-holes. Honestly, town halls have been looking the other way for far too long on this matter.
> With cars, I will sometimes proactively ring my bell at them if I think they're not sufficiently aware enough of me though.
There's only a few types of car that will be "aware" of cyclists and I don't think ringing a bell will help their algorithms. Getting the attention of a driver, meanwhile, is difficult with a bell as often they'll be in a semi-soundproof cage with loud music on. (Also deaf drivers are a thing).
I've never really considered using a bell for motorised traffic. I did once buy a loud air-horn, but it was so loud and abrasive that I never used it as it seemed really rude.
> I've never really considered using a bell for motorised traffic.
It works surprisingly well if the car isn't moving quickly. Cars aren't as sound isolating as you'd think. My main use-case is that a car is stopped at an intersection, or crossing my lane so they can turn, and I'm worried they'll pull out and hit me because they're looking the wrong way focused on car traffic, and in these situations they almost always hear my bell.
I think bells do have a communication use of course, just not really to be used as an emergency 'an accident is about to happen, immediately take action'.
At least a bell sounds relatively polite if you're not spamming it. A horn is a bit aggressive, you have to modulate it.
In a car I use two short tapped toots as a polite kind of 'excuse me' e.g. if someone hasn't noticed a light turning green. That seems more friendly than a sustained blast.
On the bike with a bell I'll just say thank you as I pass, if they've moved for me. Usually seems to go down well enough.
it's a good habit to just ring your bell when approaching things like merges and city intersections regardless if there's other people; you tend to do it earlier and might miss seeing someone.
> I find it extremely rude to ring the bell, because it feels like I'm telling people to get out of my way,
I got yelled at very rudely the other day for overtaking a pedestrian without ringing my bell. I thought I had plenty of space, rode at an appropriate speed and didn't want to be rude, like you said, but I guess you can never please everyone.
It sounds silly, but apart from liking the sound, this is why I really like wheels with loud hubs.
I have a pair of Hunt wheels and they work fantastically, bonus points because they are “always on”, pedestrians are aware of them, but are never surprised.
See how your comment has inbuilt sass? It doesn’t matter what you consider plenty of space and an appropriate speed- if you startle me, I’m going to yell at you for not ringing a bell to let me know you were there.
Note that the worst kind of canal towpath cyclist is the one who slows to a crawl and creeps behind me for minutes sometimes unnoticed, biding their time for a passing spot with lots of space. Just ring the frigging bell and I will stand out of your way for the 3 seconds it takes you to get by!
Its a shared path yes but by two sets of people going at two very different speeds, so I don't feel particularly guilty about the bell, though I do try to avoid it if possible.
Bicycle bells are mostly for warning pedestrians when approaching from behind and passing on shared-use trails. I ride on shared infrastructure and cannot afford to build new infrastructure when my town will not. Not warning a pedestrian when approaching from behind introduces the possibility of collision if the pedestrian makes a sudden change in his walking course. I typically use this etiquette:
Passing a single pedestrian or runner on a quiet day: no bell, coasting for a short bit with a loud free hub (the rotating ratchet element on the rear wheel) alerts the pedestrian to my presence.
Passing a runner: normal ring from a distance so they have knowledge that the bicycle is passing
Passing a cyclist: one loud ring from a distance
Passing a pedestrian walking a dog: two loud rings, one far, one close, so that the pedestrian is aware of the approaching bicycle and he can prevent his dog from running at me/colliding. Many dogs do seem to enjoy a bicycle chase.
Antisocial pedestrians (i.e., walking side-by-side such as to be blocking the path in both directions, preventing the bicyclist from passing): several loud rings of the bell until the antisocial activity has abated. Announcements in my local tongue (not English) that they impede the flow of traffic.
Spending some time in Germany from Holland I notice there is a significant difference in cycling etiquette :)
Especially regarding “passing a cyclist” which also touches on the essential difficulty with having only one “ring” sound.
Always when Germans pass me on the bike and they ring I get slightly annoyed because I interpret it as a “get out of the way” ring, and I feel like there is enough space. But perhaps it’s just the cautious “don’t do anything unexpected” ring.
A Dutch person would rarely ring at another cyclist in the former way. But they also might be less safety focused while cycling (see also: helmet usage). Or we have safer infrastructure already.
On a road bike, however, I too ring at pedestrians “preemptively”. For sure GPs remark of “if you need to ring you’re going too fast” applies here but that’s the essence of road cycling.
Ironically I’m also annoyed when road cyclists ring at me for the same reason.
Just shows the case for having 2 clearly different types of rings.
As a Dutch person, I experience exactly this dilemma: ringing the bell feels like telling people to get out of the way, when often there is plenty of space for me to pass through, but I know that there's a significant chance that they're going to veer into my way if they don't know I'm coming.
Of course, ringing my bell will often cause people to veer into the way, too. But then if you ring at a sufficient distance, you risk them not hearing it. Except there's no way to tell if they're not hearing it, or just consciously not veering into the way, and in the latter case, you don't want to ring again, because that will sound even more impatient.
Etiquette is hard.
(And yes, I want cars to have a bicycle bell too, so they can greet people without jump-scaring me.)
I used to slightly pull & quickly release a brake lever that made a less-annoying and less-loud "clack" noise when I wanted to be noticed but not to be annoying, generally when I knew I had no right of way but wanted to politely ask for a way around a group of people who hadn't noticed me yet.
I ring a very nice bell and can "mute" the bell (touching it with my hand to stop the ring just after thumbing the striker), so when ringing for information rather than hazard, it's a short quick ring, rather than a long loud ring.
Signs here alert cyclists to warn when passing, so certainly this etiquette is considered normal, but also I imagine it is not universal to all regions.
This is exactly the same thing with the car horn: in some countries it seems to be used for "hey you, unprotected person, do NOT swerve right now, I am passing you with my car" versus in Sweden where I live, your'e not allowed that usage at all.
Also in Sweden, you do only use the bell if really needed.
as someone who moved to Netherlands couple of years ago, I started to be much more annoyed by cyclist in other countries. In Netherlands if I hear ring I know I'm doing something wrong and I need to stop and pay asses whatever I'm doing right now.
In other countries rings now seem either unnecessary (they have enough space) or rude (I'm not on bike lane, why do you demand me to give you a way).
cars are typically the biggest problems and it's usually their behaviour, but I always give a friendly wave when a car yields (or even just doesn't run me over).
Right it has a wider non-emergency comms purpose, I do this too. But I wouldn't do it and assume they've heard or understood, and so overtake too fast on that assumption. The overtake should be safe regardless.
If infrastructure is shared it doesn't mean you have more rights to pass than pedestrian.
Moreover, bell as a way to warn doesn't work. Because pedestrians will mostly get startled because of it and can actually do this sudden move you are trying to make them not do.
So if you are on fast vehicle comparing to others in the same infrastructure, you need to drive in a way, that you can't be affected of sudden turn of someone in front of you. Which basically means you need to slow down or give enough space for others to do their sudden moves.
When cycling on shared use infrastructure I generally find pedestrians understand the meaning of a bell as a warning. Certainly some do become startled and move unpredictably, but if you travel at a low enough speed and bell with enough distance that this isn't an issue.
I regularly cycle on a very narrow shared use pavement which is directly beside a 40mph road. There is space to pass pedestrians, but I would consider it dangerous to try and pass without ensuring they are aware of my presence, even when passing at a walking pace.
A chime of the bell is more of a polite "I'm here" instead of a "Get out of my way!"
Where I live, there are different levels of "shared" and I would be very confused if a cyclist would just stay behind me instead of ringing the bell. It's different cultures.
> Generally it's a lot easier just to press the brake
Maybe easier, but it hardly seems fair, nor realistic.
With a bit of experience, you can tell when pedestrians are likely to stumble onto the bike lane without looking. Then you have two choices: Significantly reduce your speed, or ring your bell first and only reduce speed if they still haven't noticed the oncoming bike.
If you only reduce speed, you'll be traveling at a very low average speed, and time is money (especially for bike delivery workers, but I also hate having to sharply decelerate for people glued to their screen or otherwise completely unaware of their surroundings even if I'm not in a rush), so you can take a guess as to whether "just reducing your speed" is practicable.
> If you only reduce speed, you'll be traveling at a very low average speed, and time is money
Well this is a bit of an appeal to consequences. I would say (a) this is a very good reason to build dedicated infra, and (b) if something ever does happen, a court is really not going to take this line of reasoning very well, so be careful with it... even if in practice it's how you consider it.
I'm completely in favor of building dedicated infrastructure, but I can't do that by myself. (Also, how do you prevent pedestrians from crossing said dedicated infrastructure without looking? Should it be fenced off? But I agree that there are better and worse implementations of dedicated bike lanes.)
What would you suggest cyclists do until that happens? Never go faster than walking speed? Then I can leave my bike at home. Cycle on the road, where cars can hit me, instead of the dedicated bike lane, use of which is often mandatory?
> a court is really not going to take this line of reasoning very well
A court will rule in favor of the pedestrian stepping onto a bike lane without looking getting hit by a bike that's too close to do anything?
> What would you suggest cyclists do until that happens? Never go faster than walking speed? Then I can leave my bike at home. Cycle on the road, where cars can hit me, instead of the dedicated bike lane, use of which is often mandatory?
I don't know where you live but it's quite unusual here to be cycling through areas that have a lot of pedestrians. If the bike lane is a dedicated one, pedestrians are very rarely in it. But yes if all else fails, the road is preferable to the pavement if you're unwilling to cycle slowly enough.
> how do you prevent pedestrians from crossing said dedicated infrastructure without looking?
That's a UX problem. You can also ask how to prevent cars driving on the cycle lane. Which we do in a multitude of ways. You just need to physically communicate segregation and danger.
> A court will rule in favor of the pedestrian stepping onto a bike lane without looking getting hit by a bike that's too close to do anything?
Here, absolutely, if they consider the cyclist is going too fast for the conditions. There's a concept of a hierarchy whereby the more vulnerable class is almost assumed not to be at fault. Same for a car hitting a cyclist, or a motorbike, even.
> If the bike lane is a dedicated one, pedestrians are very rarely in it.
Pedestrians step onto the dedicated bike lane I use to commute on average at least once per way for me.
> But yes if all else fails, the road is preferable to the pavement if you're unwilling to cycle slowly enough.
Of course I'm taking the road if there's no dedicated bike lane. Cycling faster than walking speed on the sidewalk seems reckless to me.
> That's a UX problem. You can also ask how to prevent cars driving on the cycle lane. Which we do in a multitude of ways. You just need to physically communicate segregation.
Yes, but I can only use the bike lane that already exists. Of course I prefer the ones with better UX.
> There's a concept of a hierarchy whereby the more vulnerable class is almost assumed not to be at fault.
Not where I live. You are allowed to e.g. trust adult pedestrians without any visible signs of impairment to not randomly step into the road. Otherwise, driving cars next to sidewalks or crossing intersections would only be possible at walking speed as well.
Of course, if you already see somebody approaching the road, somebody walking unsteadily, visibly intoxicated etc. you are obliged to still brake preemptively. The question here is whether visible noise-cancelling headphones would be considered a similar visible impairment, I suppose.
Personally, I just always assume I haven't been noticed, because ultimately I don't want to run somebody over even if I would be legally in the clear. That's a different story, though.
Our bike lanes are just a line on the sidewalk and pedestrians routinely walk on them, cross the sidewalk in them without looking, let their toddlers/pets run into them, etc. Also, nobody realizes that a bicycle bell means "someone is coming", so they just ignore it as background noise.
I had to mount an airhorn onto my bike. At least people listen to that, though it's so loud I only use it in emergencies.
I would be worried about a horn like this because if they get startled and move into the path of a car on the actual road, or do any other stupid thing that injures them, you're going to have real problems.
I get your point about not wanting to reduce speed, but it's worth considering how the law might react in a worse-case scenario.
Here in the UK, there was an infamous case of Charlie Alliston who ended up getting a ridiculous 18 months prison sentence after colliding with a pedestrian who hit her head and subsequently died. He was riding a "fixie" without a front brake and was cycling at around 18mph through some green traffic lights. The pedestrian was crossing the road further on (i.e. not at a junction which is fairly normal) and wasn't paying enough attention, so Charlie shouted at her to get out of his way. He started to reduce speed (rear brake only), but then decided that he could just aim for the gap behind her, but she then reacted to his shouting by stepping backwards into his path.
The point is that the judge awarded such a tough sentence partly due to Charlie not taking all available actions to avoid a collision and also because his bike was illegal to use on the road due to having just one brake. So, if you rely on a bell to clear your path, you could be held liable if they don't respond and you collide.
To be clear, I am still reducing my speed if I don't get positive confirmation that I've been noticed or if there's not enough time for a reaction to even happen.
My bell just gives me the significant improvement of possibly getting a reaction from the pedestrian long before I need to start braking.
However, not everybody does cycle like that. And while legally and ethically dubious, the bell still helps in that case as well.
I don't know, the sentence doesn't sound ridiculous if you're cycliing at 18mph towards someone, without a front brake, and your precaution is "it's OK, I can guess which way they're going to go".
The sentence was very harsh compared to lots of drivers who have killed people in far worse ways. I don't want to excuse him as he was also a complete arsehole on social media after the collision and his cycling was reckless. The lesson is that even if you think you have priority, you have to do all that you can to avoid hitting someone.
I've been a cyclist in SF and in Amsterdam, both for many years.
In SF I used my bell much more aggressively. It was mainly for cars, if I'm in or entering their blind spot and my spidey sense tells me they are considering an action that places me in danger. For example, we all know when driving when the car in front of us is thinking about merging, even before they indicate (often I feel like I know before they do). I also used it for pedestrians stepping out into the street who are maybe looking past me for oncoming cars but somehow don't see me, or when approaching 'blind' situations like a sharp corner, a driver pulling out of a driveway but there is a tree between us, delivery drivers stepping out from their truck, etc. I can't say how many accidents have been prevented (the person may have eventually looked and seen me), but I can say that my bell has triggered people to look and see me earlier than they were going to had I not rang it.
In Amsterdam my bell is used much more sparingly. It's mostly for tourists stepping into (or considering stepping into) the bike lane. If they are already in the bike lane, I almost always prefer just to slow down a bit and dodge them, as ringing the bell often triggers a deer-caught-in-headlight moment or erratic behavior, which increases the chance of an accident or that I have to come to a full stop. The other situation is to express dissatisfaction at cars blocking bike lanes, cars/bikes not yielding, drivers blocking intersections, or other dangerous behavior. This isn't preventing an accident but I'd argue it is still important, as social control affects how often we make bad decisions. Outside the city I also use my bell to let other cyclists know I'm passing.
So yeah, I'd say bells prevent accidents, but obviously not as well as good biking infrastructure, where pedestrians, bikes, and cars have clear separate spaces, and visibility of cyclists to drivers is high.
It's not only about preventing accidents (but I do believe it prevents some to attempt answering your question).
It's also about signaling to someone that they might be doing something wrong or they might not be paying attention. For pedestrians it takes significantly less time and distance to stop, for cars, trams, and bicycles, it takes longer.
It happens all the time that pedestrians don't know the customs of a country, they don't recognize bike lines... in that case the cyclists do not need to pump the breaks anytime a clueless tourist gets in front of them... they can ring the bell, signaling:
"yo, it's not how we do it here, please watch out, I'm coming full speed and you are in the wrong, so please look up from your phone and stop right there".
I also had the luck to meet some people thinking they can be on their phone while cycling, drifting into my lane, etc... In that case, a bell is also adequate
"hey, please stop writing a text message while you are on your bike blazing through the city, you are driving as if you were drunk, pay attention please and stop multitasking (you moron)"
If nothing works to change their behavior, of course I'll try my best and hit the brakes safely, but I'd prefer they learned how to move around in the city safely.
My experiences on a motorcycle tell me that if you feel the need to honk you should be focusing on braking and evasive maneuvers instead.
The choice between between teaching some midwit the law and going home in one piece seems crystal clear to me.
In a couple of years of riding I think the horn would have very slightly helped maybe... once or twice. If the other guy would have heard it at all which is doubtful.
As someone who cycles daily, the bell is less aggressive than a car horn and it's a useful signaling tool about every other day. I need to signal that I'm approaching from behind pedestrians, especially if they are walking without any safe gaps for me to pass them through.
In the UK, an important market for VW group, there are two types of bicycle, one for the proletariat and the other for the bourgeoisie. Due to the k-shaped economy, the proletariat bicycle died a long time ago, to evolve into the 'Lime bike' in places such as London. In the past, companies such as Raleigh provided excellent proletariat bicycles, and the working man could afford them for his kids and himself. Of course, he would prefer a car, because cars are high status whereas a steel/aluminium bicycle with straight bars is not.
The bourgeoisie bicycle is a relatively recent phenomenon, and anything totally impractical and made of carbon fibre qualifies as bourgeoisie. The bourgeoisie bicycle is also too expensive to lock up in town, plus you need all the clobber to go with it (lycra).
Every bourgeoisie bicycle is owned by a car dependent person. They don't begin their ride at their front door, and their journeys are not useful or with purpose beyond cycling. Their bicycles get strapped onto the back of their car, or placed in the trunk, with wheels removed. These people don't need locks for their bicycles as they have a two tonne steel box to secure their bicycle in. You also get things like power-meters with these bikes, plus the owner has to wear a special polystyrene hat, at the insistence of their mother.
Skoda are selling to those people that spend £5K+ on their toy carbon fibre bicycle. They know the realities of car dependency.
Why would somebody transport a bike on car to London and ride on the streets crowded with pedestrians? And attach a massive bell to a carbon bike to facilitate that? The video shows that they have given these to delivery riders, which seems to be the target audience for a device like that. Seeing that this story is going viral everywhere it appears to be a quite a successful PR campaign. I doubt it's a real product though now I imagine similar devices will appear on Alibaba and Amazon.
If you are a sane person, absolutely not!! You _try_ the bell, if people react, then you go. Many times it just confuses people or people ignore it.
If you are a high-speed maniac and _rely_ on the bell to clear a path for you... then yeah. But you are then also likely to take great risks in general and will probably be in other accidents...
> In order for e.g. a horn to work you need enough time that the driver processes the situation and decides the horn will communicate something AND enough time for the pedestrian or whatever to process that and react to it. Generally it's a lot easier just to press the brake, and more importantly be travelling at a speed and in a manner where the brake is sufficient
I have seen a small kid jump from his father's scooter just when I was overtaking them and they decided to stop because he had seen his grandpa or whoever was that old guy on the other side of the bike lane. His father managed to stop him by grabbing his sweater because I had rung my bell a few seconds before he decided to stop but the kid ended up inches from my bicycle. It was at very low speed, almost walking speed yet hitting a bicycle handlebars head first because you turn around without looking still hurts even if the bicycle his stopped.
If I'm driving and I see a young kid like this I always move out away from the curb if possible. So even if they dart out or fall into the road it's not a problem. Actually, same if I'm passing a bunch of parked cars and there is room, since kids can be stupid and emerge from between them.
If someone truly runs into when you're stationary, I'm not sure anyone really has a problem with you in that scenario.
I don't want people to get hurts, regardless if it is my fault or not. Our world/societes could do with more empathy even if some people do errors.
For the same reason I try to be courteous and try to always say "hello, thank you, have a nice day" even if sometimes I am fuming inside that someone cut my path and I had priority from a legal point of view. I also quietly slow down and give ample distance to someone who cross the street when I am driving even when it is a stupid decision from their part and others would have honked or shouted insults.
I don't think our life and interactions should always be a case of us vs them.
There are a lot of runners on mixed use paths wearing headphones these days. They are an absolute danger to overtaking bikes. A bell they would hear would be useful.
To me, in a path with no priority to the bike, the only danger are cyclist who think they have priority and can overtake people at speed.
Being able to get the attention of runners improves the situation, reducing the speed while circulating on a mixed path solves it completely. If you wanna go fast get on a bike lane or the road.
I don't quite follow, how slowing makes the problem of a runner jumping into the side of your bike go away? If anything it makes it more likely he or she will knock you off the bike since a slower moving bike is less stable and also increases the time you are in the danger zone next to a runner. And runners do jump between the lanes for no apparent reason.
Running with ANC headphones on is like driving with your eyes closed. Safety is a two-way street and it's everyone's responsibility to maintain a basic level of situational awareness.
Pedestrians are not danger, they are victims! Cyclist should slow down, while performing dangerous overtaking, and not crash into them! Same rules like with cars!
In cars a horn has saved me a few times where someone was backing up or turning into me not realising I was there. In those situations my car was stationary so there was nothing else I could do as quickly as pressing the horn
>> properly segregated infrastructure for each class of vehicle.
I ride a lot in traffic and the problem with segregated infrastructure (i.e. bike lanes) is the interfaces and constriction. Pedestrians step off the sidewalk or out of cars into constrained bike lanes all the time and there's no where to go; cars turn across bike lanes with the same problem.
You can't always do it, but if you can eliminate the speed differential I believe riding in traffic is much safer than a bike lane, at least until you get enough bike volume to keep drivers aware. THat's hard to do in most of NA or year round.
They certainly can, yes. Many crashes can be avoided if both parties slam on the brakes or swerve, not not quite if only one does. Also they're useful in parking lots when some dumbass is about to back right into you.
I concur. Even the best bell in the world may be utterly useless if the pedestrian happens to be deaf. Also, bicycle bells tend to polarise pedestrians - some people think that bells are rude and insisting that peds get out of the way and other people think it's dangerous and rude to not use a bell every time you overtake.
My solution is to still have a tiny bell on my road bike, but instead of using it, call out something like "can I get past, please?" or if an immediate response is required (e.g. ped blindly stepping into the road ahead of me) then yelling "Oi!" can really surprise them and make them notice you. I'm also a fan of using "Beep, beep" if a ped is on cycle infrastructure (active travel infrastructure is probably a better term) and I want to pretend that I'm an impatient driver.
I think the human voice is far superior to a bell as you can tailor the message for the situation and you don't have to move a hand away from the brakes to do so. (Using your voice is also a very good idea when approaching a horse and rider - horses know about humans and don't get freaked out if you call ahead "Morning!" or something cheery and appropriate).
I realised after a few near misses that my voice is by far the lowest latency signal method I have. If a situation suddenly seems dangerous I'll yell. Perhaps not very polite, but far more polite than hitting someone who stepped out in front of me. A bike bell probably adds a second of latency to find the bell. I'd rather use that time to brake.
The bell can be useful as a more general "I'm here" warning. But if there's any actual risk of a collision, yelling and braking are far more effective.
In the scenario presented (London, mostly not segregated bike paths), the solution is for the cyclist to ride in a way they're not endangering pedestrians.
There's even a fairly recent UK law (https://www.gov.uk/government/news/the-highway-code-8-change...) that more or less says in a collision, the "stronger" road user is at fault unless proven otherwise. That applies to car v. cyclist as much as cyclist v. pedestrian.
Political cyclists hate this because they think anybody who complains is just a car driver concern trolling, but having been hit by a cyclist I can attest to it being a real problem. Sure I wasn't in real risk of dying, but I was bruised and scraped up for a week after that. I've done my fair share of road cycling in my years, I don't do it now but I still cycle on trails. The way some cyclists push back on any criticism at all is very ideological, and a real problem for not just pedestrians (and drivers) but cyclists too, because the outspoken attitudes and public stunts of political cyclists breed a lot of contempt for cyclists broadly speaking, to the point where normies groan when I say I spent my weekend going on a trip with my bike, and still act weird when I explain I was on a rail-to-trail not clogging up a highway.
It's one thing when you're a fit adult male and get hit by an idiot cycling recklessly on the pavement, it's another if you're a small child or frail through sickness or old age. I've seen a couple of very near misses that would have ended very badly for the pedestrian through no fault of their own.
Saying this it's mostly teenagers in the idiot role from what I've seen and they are reckless by default.
I've been nearly hit by a bicycle-messenger looking dude in San Francisco when I was crossing the street with a "walk" sign at a crosswalk and he blew through the red light at probably about 15mph, and I have plenty of other experiences like that.
If you are running a red light at 15mph on a bicycle, dodging pedestrians, you are just an asshole - maybe you're slightly less dangerous than an SUV running a red light, but it is still completely not okay.
There are dumb teenagers, which is one thing, but the aggressive "well, we're not emitting carbon, so we can do whatever we want crowd" is probably even more crappy and dangerous, since they're deliberate about it, and more present in areas with lots of pedestrians.
Did you consider that your talking about GROUPS of people where _some_ individuals from ALL groups regularly behave poorly and deserve criticism and action?
Or is that too much of a nuance against tribal thinking?
Why do you think I'm not aware of this? Did I not just explain how different people who do the activity have different perspectives, priorities and proclivities? Did I not just explain how I disagree with the way some cyclists conduct themselves, while plainly being aware that not all cyclists are like this?
Maybe none of this way apparent to you, despite it being plainly written out in simple English, because... I don't know actually. Can you explain your failure to read?
Two of the three clips clearly show a bike-lane blocked by pedestrians. The third looks like a shared space - but blocked in a way where it seems reasonable to ask for space by ringing the bell?
That seems to be exactly the case. As a pedestrian, my problem is the cyclists who think the sidewalk is for going faster than the speed limit and the bike lane is for pedestrians to dodge into. As a driver, it's cyclists who think "you can treat stop signs as yields if there's no traffic" means "stop signs are go signs, yield signs are go faster signs, there's no such thing as a red light". I'm sure if I biked, I'd be complaining about cars not seeing me and pedestrians being unpredictable and hogging the sidewalk. I'm sure if I was a train driver, I'd rant about cars blocking the tracks!
> the "stronger" road user is at fault unless proven otherwise
In general I agree with this, but a lot a lot depends on how "unless proven otherwise" is interpreted.
If a driver is typically at fault when a pedestrian or cyclist unexpectedly moves into their path then it seems like that practically restricts cars to speeds close to biking or walking in many cities.
Similarly, if a cyclist is typically at fault when a pedestrian unexpectedly moves into their path then it seems like that restricts bikes to speeds close to walking in many cities.
This effectively pedestrianizes car lanes and bike lanes which would be lovely in some areas, but it also restricts travel to walking speeds which also has downsides if enforced across an entire city.
> People cycling, riding a horse or driving a horse-drawn vehicle should respect the safety of people walking in these spaces, but people walking should also take care not to obstruct or endanger them.
Seems to be some misunderstanding of what bike bells are for here...
A bell is helpful in a situation where a pedestrian is not aware of an approaching bike. The bell informs the pedestrian of two things:
1. That there is an approaching bike.
2. Roughly were the bike is approaching from.
The hope is that the pedestrian will then behave in a predictable way to allow a safe pass by the bike. In almost all cases the pedestrian will be able to simply continue doing what they were doing before they heard the bell.
If a pedestrian can not hear bike bells, for whatever reason, that is not a problem. They can just stay consistent with the centreline of the path/road/way. They then have a responsibility to shoulder check when shifting from side to side.
I think it's time for some sort of a safety standard for a sound frequency to be reserved exclusively for alarm/alert use and that ANC systems have to let through.
It goes without saying, use of said frequency should be prohibited for other purposes, especially marketing.
I think this is a really bad idea unless paired with some regime that penalizes inappropiate use of alarms - and most societies don't treat noise pollution as a real problem. For example, people honk all the time even when there are no safety issues. Or have misconfigured home/car alarms. Outlawing using ANC for blocking "fake alarms" only makes the problem worse.
I've recently visited the southern US (Texas, Louisiana and such) and I was very surprised about the lack of honking. When I returned to Europe I've felt like in India.
I myself pretty much never honk. I understand honking makes sense on narrow bendy roads like in the mountains, where you need to alert the drivers behind the corner, but I don't see any other legitimate reasons to be honest.
as soon they do that all kind of companies will start abusing it, for example the sound of all smart phone notification will use exactly that frequency
I don't know… If I'm sitting at home or at a cafe working, I want my headphones to block all bicycle bells and ambulances on the street. Those in traffic could perhaps just turn their ANC off?
Won't those cut right through the ANC just by volume alone? A domestic fire alarm is 85–120 dB, I don't think my airpods can mute that.
And of course there will always be fringe cases. What if I go to sleep with regular foam earplugs, what if I take a sleeping pill etc. Or what if the warning sound can't be engineered to fit a ANC friendly frequency, like somebody screaming, a car tire screech behind me and so on.
There is no ANC that can block those, both because of volume and also because ANC only blocks constant noises like hums. It's terrible and sudden noises like alarms and honking.
Regular alarm sounds already do that, because above 1kHz or so it's the cushioning in the device that does the majority of the cancelling. There's a dip in effectiveness before that because to cancel noise effectively it's best to have a latency lower than a quarter of the wave's period.
Also ANC works best on wide-spectrum sounds, so any kind of siren or the cries of a child will go through, as the spectrum is a series of narrow peaks.
With all the road noise and now noise makers required even for silent EVs, noise cancelling headphones are the last resort for people to get some relief from the constant noise pollution in cities.
And now you want to take that away too? No thanks. I get safety is important, but so is relief from noise pollution. Noise pollution is very damaging to your health. There needs to be a balance, and currently the safety police are weighing the scales inappropriately low.
Ha, I had the same idea before I realized it’ll just be used for ads. It would be cool for pilots’ announcements on a flight, or approaching stations on the train etc. But CVS will use it to tell you to download their app and enroll in ExtraCare Rewards. Or “Did you know you may be due for more than fourteen vaccines all at no cost to you?”
Is there an interpretation of the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act where using this bicycle bell to circumvent the computer system used in your headphones for active noise cancellation would be a federal felony in the United States?
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
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.
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.
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.
> 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.
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.
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.
> 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.
No, they simply have different ethical frameworks/moral philosophies (consequentialist vs deontologist).
I’d mostly agree with you in that I find it unethical to not promote bike helmets at all, even if this were to somehow increase aggregate safety, especially if that increase is delayed and hard to measure.
But I do see the point against making them mandatory if that makes people take their car instead of a bike.
It’s not like not wearing a bike helmet is a dangerous, addictive substance that people are somehow defenselessly exposed to and that they need protection from, and it’s ultimately their own decision if they value their hairdo more than their brain.
In the basis we seem to agree. Note that I am not trying to discourage helmet wearing (nor for governments to do it), just arguing against making it mandatory or even officially advised (for healthy adults) to wear them.
Actual cycling safety is in numbers, more than in individually taken measures. This is all discussed in way more depth on reddit btw [0].
> but as a simple thought exercise on your argument
I realize could have written the sentence you respond to better, I should have written "and [mandatory helmet wearing] reduces perceived safety", also I said "should" in the sentence preceding the one you quoted, but I should've said that the NL ones ARE against making helmets mandatory for exactly the reasons I specify (and that my opinion is that other rights' organizations SHOULD be against it). Quoted directly from tbe website of the, quite well-regarded and not off their rocker, Fietsersbond [1] (under the header "Veilig gevoel?", translated by kagi):
The Fietsersbond (Cyclists' Union) isn't against wearing a bike helmet. If you feel confident, you cycle more safely. It can be wise to wear a helmet in high-risk situations, for example, for seniors on e-bikes. Unfortunately, it has been proven multiple times that forcing people to wear a helmet actually backfires. People start cycling less.
A helmet mandate makes cycling feel more like a dangerous activity—something you should be afraid of. Getting around by bike also becomes more complicated. After all, what do you do with that helmet when you're not wearing it? And what happens if you forget the helmet or if it gets stolen? These are all factors—whether justified or not—that make choosing a bike less convenient.
So yes, given that you got into an accident, it is very obviously better if you had worn a helmet (and knee, elbow and wrist pads). However, we don't want only to reduce mortality rates on accidents, we actually want to reduce the amount of accidents wholesale. The above point (and the point in my previous post) is that given mandatory or officially encouraged helmet wearing, you are more likely to get into an accident in the first place, further reducing the number of people willing to cycle, and thus safety for all those who still are willing.
I wanted to react to your car/seatbelt point, but I realize now you are the same person arguing about what constitutes starting points in the sibling thread. I don't mean to spread FUD and I also disagree that this is indeed FUD. I'm sorry that Austria is not as nice a place for cyclists as you would like it to be. I hope with this oil crisis you will find a way to foment some change re the emancipation of cyclists in your locality or even country.
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.
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...
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.
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.
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.
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.)
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
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.
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.
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.
> 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.
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.
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.
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.
Through acoustic testing, the research team identified a narrow frequency band – a “safety gap” – capable of penetrating ANC headphone filters. This range lies between 750 and 780 Hz.
Building an entire product around EQ crossover frequencies (which are not standardized or regulated in any way) seems a bit risky to me. Those are things that could change at any time, as could the shapes of the EQ curves themselves. there are fads in engineering design like anything else and in this wholly digital era they tend to cycle and proliferate faster because increased performance (or at least hte temporary consumer perception of such ) is only a software update away. People are extraordinarily susceptible to placebo effects in the audio realm (probably because most people prioritize their visual sense), so just moving EQ crossovers around or making them dynamically adjustable is an easy path to consumer buzz. You see this all the time with pro audio plugins.
Next challange: Place a camera in front of the bike that scans approaching pedestrians. Calculate their head position and trajectory. Use directional speakers and focused sound beams to focus the ~780Hz sound towards the head(s) of the pedestrian(s). Now that you are not bothering the environment as much, you can increase the volume as well.
I would love that but not so much for pedestrians as for cars that don't see me on my bike. Ideally, the "bell" would automatically honk at them very loudly when they get too close.
After 10+ year biking in Amsterdam I never use my bicycle bell. Instead I try to predict their trajectory and steer around it, way more predictable because everyone responds differently
People use their ears to navigate traffic (as non-car-users) much more than they realize. There's a reason kids need to be drilled in "look both ways before crossing the street" - you can hear that there's no car coming, what's the problem? There's a reason electric cars need to make that strange noise so you can, in fact, hear them coming. Absolutely a headphone user, with not only ANC to reduce external noises but loud music to mask them, is missing a primary sense for navigating traffic. Absolutely these things increase accidents from minor (someone walking into the path of a cyclist on a multi-use path, oblivious to bells and callouts) to major.
But can that bell penetrate loud music? How many people really walk around with ANC headphones just as a "cone of silence" device?
This bell would be illegal in Denmark, where our laws clearly state that you are only allowed one signal giving device and that any signal giving devices attached to vehicles (including bikes) can only produce one constant sound.
Not entirely the same in Norway, but the rule as written is roughly translated "Sound signal: A bike should have a bell. Other signalling devices are prohibited".
Doesn't stop me from using an AirZound or digital airhorn. Saved me countless times. Like a bell is heard by a driver blasting their stereo while checking their phone, slowly veering into the cycle lane.
Really? I would have guessed you could argue that it qualifies as „one signal giving device“ since it is one single piece of equipment (ie the horn in a car also has many parts, but it‘s presumably fine) and also that it „only produces one constant sound“, where that sound is composed of different frequencies (again, car horns probably don‘t have a pure tone in Denmark either, right?).
I find the "Heard five seconds earlier, the difference between a serious collision and stepping aside" take hilarious. As if there is no other way to prevent a collision in five seconds other than the pedestrian getting out of the way.
As much as I get the urge to plow through pedestrians on bike paths (and stay proudly in the way of bikes on pedestrian paths), in real life, normal people don't do that kind of thing. Bikes have brakes for a reason.
Yeah, this while video I honestly couldn’t stop chuckling because it’s built on assumption that bicycles somehow either can’t brake at all or will take five business days to brake like a freight train.
Though looking at Berlin cyclists the assumption seems to be true - so many of them insist on just plowing headfirst into an obstacle instead of braking that I start to think that the video was made by one of such cyclists.
Draw a line, say this is for bicycles, pedestrians and cars have no business here, and bikes have no business being on any other lane as long as these exist.
When bikes have to go through areas where people walk freely, they need to limit their speed to a walking pace.
People should not wear headphones (noise-cancelling or not) when going through traffic as pedestrians. Take them off when crossing!
People should not hear loud music when driving - max is normal speaking voice level. Bike drivers should never hear any music, let alone wearing headphones. Behind-ear speakers on low could be a compromise.
> Draw a line, say this is for bicycles, pedestrians and cars have no business here, and bikes have no business being on any other lane as long as these exist.
This is the reality in many cities, if it weren't for the hopefully not surprising fact that people don't always obey traffic laws perfectly.
Unfortunately, the UK seems almost incapable of building usable cycle infrastructure (possibly excepting London). Your idea is just a recipe for magic protective paint and even more abuse of cyclists who don't want to be forced to use ridiculously badly designed infrastructure. e.g. Here in Bristol, we have an infamous shared cycle/pedestrian pavement along Coronation Rd that has a few trees completely blocking the cycle side which just means conflict between pedestrians and cyclists who have to fight over the scraps left over from motorists taking most of the space (https://www.google.com/maps/@51.4462522,-2.6064792,3a,75y,80...).
No, you didn't. And restricting cyclists and pedestrians will not result in even small dent in the numbers of maimed or killed people in traffic. It's one mode of transport that's responsible for the vast amount of it, and that's the motorized one propelling several tonnes.
> and bikes have no business being on any other lane as long as these exist
And cars have no business being on other roads as long as highways exist ;)
I meant biking accidents this product is obviously trying to solve.
> And cars have no business being on other roads as long as highways exist ;)
Biking lanes are not comparable to highways. Where I'm living, if you bike on car lanes when biking lanes exist, or if you bike on sidewalks at all, you get a hefty fine depending on the situation and if you possess one, you get points on your driving license.
Exceptions are turning, leaving the road, the lane being blocked by a clueless driver etc. obviously.
Cars are also not allowed on biking lanes, neither are pedestrians. Same exceptions apply.
How do we enforce seatbelts? (1) Assume the public aren't stupid. (2) Assume the public aren't murderers. (3) Explain the risk-benefit analysis through informative videos like https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Julie_(1998_film).
People can shout "domestic terror" all they like, but if it's not true, it's not true.
Wearing a seatbelt cost next to nothing in inconvenience. Not being able to listen to music or have phone calls with noise cancellation while walking does not really compare.
Of course this requires compensating for the loss in awareness through hearing by looking more diligently before crossing a bike lane, but unfortunately, some people never learn this, or only through a few close calls.
"Annoyingly" ringing a bell and converting a potential accident into a close call seems pretty close to optimal to me.
"Next to nothing in inconvenience" is the perception now. It certainly wasn't the perception when seatbelts were introduced. The ability to listen to personal music while walking is less than 50 years old: before that, you had the radio or nothing. Even that would not be an intolerable inconvenience for most. But I was more thinking:
> People should not hear loud music when driving - max is normal speaking voice level.
which feels like a more than acceptable constraint to me.
> People should not hear loud music when driving - max is normal speaking voice level.
Oh, completely agreed on that one. In a car, you are also by far better protected than any cyclists you might encounter, so you shouldn't make it harder to hear their signaling. (I still wouldn't rely on any car having heard my bell if I don't get any other confirmation that the driver has noticed me, e.g. sufficiently slowing down as they are approaching the intersection where I have right of way.)
But GGP also said
> People should not wear headphones (noise-cancelling or not) when going through traffic as pedestrians. Take them off when crossing!
and that's what I think goes too far. Why should I remove my headphones if I look both ways before crossing a bike lane or road?
The ideal rule would of course be that only those pedestrians remove their headphones that are otherwise inattentive... Although I have my doubts that they'd remember.
You are answering different question. What you are saying is called awareness campaign or something. Enforcement of seatbelts is done by police with fines/tickets and is possible cause it's visible from outside.
Other things like loudness levels inside cars cannot be monitored without going in full totalitarian mode.
Why would enforcement be necessary, given assumptions 1 and 2 (not stupid, not murderers), and awareness? Around these parts, seatbelt enforcement isn't necessary because everyone voluntarily wears their seatbelt – except for children, occasionally, but the adults are generally capable of enforcing that. (Even teenagers / young adults being irresponsible in cars generally wear seatbelts while doing so.)
Cause humans works that way. We don't calculate risks based on statistics in everyday life. That means you can't just make people aware, you need to build cultural norm around that. But cultural norms without enforcement are easy to erode. When norm is systematically broken it ceases to be norm.
>seatbelt enforcement isn't necessary because everyone voluntarily wears their seatbelt
You obviously don't travel much. There are whole countries where seatbelts are rarely used, and drivers buy special plugs for belt receptacles to silence beeping.
If "shouldn't" worked we'd have no industrial accidents without any safety measures, no unwanted pregnancies and in general would more or less achieve heaven on Earth.
It's almost hilarious that such efforts are spent on bicycle bells while emergency vehicles are featuring deafeningly loud alarms to penetrate the sound isolation of cars.
It's hard for me to understand why people choose to walk around in public wearing headphones. I'm aware that it's incredibly common, but you put yourself at risk of theft, accident, and of course the mild hearing loss that accompanies _any_ frequent headphone usage. In the case of both theft and accident, you cannot hear your assailant coming, and miss the queues that would otherwise keep you safe.
"Loud" is a bit subjective, but in my experience most people make their volume far too loud. Even moreso if you're attempting to overcome the background sound around you.
The articles below discuss both volume and duration. It's also worth checking out the OSHA guidelines which pretty cleanly show the relationship between duration and volume. (ie, "safer" volumes still cause damage with enough duration.)
Same reason I listen to music or podcasts in the car.
I am very lucky to live in a city/country where risks of theft from my person is low - when I lived for 20 years in London I never once felt unsafe listening to music.
The closest was two young men got very close to me on the tube, when I was playing on my brand new Hong Kong imported PSP - but I just took my headphones off. I think they were just interested as most people hadn't seem one in the flesh yet.
I can't say I know of anyone personally who suffered theft or accident caused by them listening to music on headphones.
When I cycled a lot, I had a small speaker strapped to my handlebars rather than wearing headphones, as I liked being able to hear cars around me - but when I was younger I regularly cycled in headphones, and was still able to hear enough of the road around me to not feel that I was missing anything.
Remember, we don't make drivers drive around with no music and their windows open, so that they are better able to hear cyclists...
I know a few people that simply wear headphones to help with managing sensory overload, so I wouldn't assume that having headphones on is a guarantee of listening to something (though still likely to be strongly correlated).
As far as assailants, a skilled ninja wouldn't be detected even if their target weren't wearing headphones...
It's a definitive statement that you don't want to talk to people. In London not wearing headphones ironically means you become a target for people who want your attention. And it blocks out the otherwise very loud cityscape.
Where I used to live it was smart not to wear headphones, being it for muggers, drunk drivers, random shootings or crazy dogs. It was not a chill place no.
Cool idea. But bizarre that they worked with Deliveroo. Bike bells were designed for a time when cyclists travelled at speeds where you could safely get out of the way.
Most "independent" cyclists do cycle safely.
But delivery riders for delivery platforms commonly use illegally modified e-bikes. Platforms have the GPS data. They must know.
They could make huge improvements in safety by actively preventing the use of illegally modified e-bikes that travel too fast.
>They could make huge improvements in safety by actively preventing the use of illegally modified e-bikes that travel too fast.
Or by regulating bicycle food delivery services so thatheir employees' continued employment and wage magnitude doesn't hinge quite so thoroughly on how rapidly they deliver.
I nearly put a passive aggressive "employees" in my post, but that would mix concerns. But having drivers as "contractors", and dodging employers' responsibilities and liabilities, is really the root of this all.
I've noticed some trains are playing extremely loud announcements (Elizabeth line for example) which makes me think they're trying to penetrate headphones and earphones
Guess why I wear noise cancelling headphones on trains? Because of the excessive announcements!
(I mean seriously excessive. Because in the UK the answer to everything is to create another announcement or poster)
It is amazing they openly shared their findings [0], but one thing I am missing is what this design would cost if put into mass production. To the biggest layman possible, it reads like while the design is clever and would be more expensive by virtue of more materials/size alone, it's not impractical, but maybe someone more informed on this type of manufacturing can correct my ignorance. If that's the case, hopefully we'll see these designs on the market soon as even with music+ANC, I have found certain sounds to be able to easily penetrate through when listening, though that is purely subjective and I don't have my music earbleedingly loud...
Well, if you’re on a bicycle and you can see the pedestrian is not paying attention (whether they are on the noise-canceling headphones or are deaf themselves)… do the right thing and proceed with caution. Assume they don’t see you and prepare to stop. Wait for visual confirmation that they saw you.
That will eliminate the bulk of traffic “accidents” involving bicycle and pedestrian; it’s expected and common to do this in the Netherlands.
I have noticed I can make a less sharp sound with my bike bell by ringing it a certain way. I use this to let pedestrians know I am coming but that they don't have to jump out of the way.
Overall this bell seems like the wrong solution, and it took me a while to realize not every country has outlawed headphone wearing for bicyclists, something I guess I took for granted.
It doesn't make sense for a car driven to use headphones, so not sure why it'd make sense for other vehicle-users to use them either, as you say, we really do use our ears to help navigate traffic so allowing people to be so careless seems... Careless?
You can turn up your car stereo and mow over pedestrians undisturbed in your two ton death machine yet I'm not allowed to cycle on a bicycle-only path with with a podcast and transparency mode enabled? For my own safety? Safety from car drivers that fell asleep driving with their stereo on?
Don't know where you live, but where I live it isn't legal to play so loud music that you cannot hear the outside, especially if it's so loud you cannot hear other car horns. So no, neither should be allowed, because again, we use our hearing when we're in traffic to help our other senses.
Mostly for others safety, and I guess if it helps you; for your safety too.
I think it's better to separate dangerous traffic. Have dedicated bike lanes instead of those stupid stripes on the pavement that are really hard to see. Ban cars from city centres (fortunately my city is making some headway with this). Increase public transport.
I wear these things because traffic is too noisy though. Assholes with super loud motorbikes or mopeds in particular, cars aren't the worst.
There's been the odd idiot wearing headphones mowed down on train tracks. The trains air horn didn't get the message through.
The Air Zound is wonderful. You can get pedestrians' attention with light toots. I reserve the full blast for developing danger or people who didn't get the message from the toots.
Survival depends on being heard in a car with closed windows with possible loud radio or squabbling kids.
It may have been intentional. More than one suicide by train has involved the person who died by suicide wearing headphones as they walked on the tracks (it was clear that it was a suicide and not intentional as engineers have reported the person looking at the train when the horn was sounded but not leaving the tracks).
It's unfortunate that this is necessary. It should be obvious that wearing noise cancelling headphones in trafic, including as a pedestrian, is a bad idea.
I'm legally blind, so I have my own bias here, but I think people really over-rely on sight. If you do want to listen to something while walking around a city, I can highly recommend bone conduction headphones, that keep your ears unblocked.
I love to see high-tech mechanical/analog solutions like this. I recently bought a vintage mechanical kitchen timer and it almost feels like you have a different relationship to your possessions when you know they're mechanical.
It's also so nice to know I can put it away and not worry about finding it a year later with the battery I forgot to remove having exploded
And seems to sound like a normal bell, or maybe that's just my ears. I guess I can see why they didn't put it up front, but that was also all I wanted.
> In real-world trials conducted on the streets of London in February, in cooperation with Deliveroo couriers, the bell proved so effective that couriers expressed a desire to keep it.
Of course they would, because a lot of them either don’t have any bell, or have a shitty ping-ping bell that doesn’t produce good sound.
A pedestrian shouldn't need to be able to hear to be safe from cyclists. Focusing on headphones is ignoring that the same dangers are being imposed on deaf people and people with otherwise bad hearing. If a cyclist needs to use the bell for safety, they should hit the brakes.
I’m sure Android and iOS could add some AI feature to let some specific noises in the headset when needed (baby cries when enabled, smoke detector alarms, bike/car bells, etc). Simply stop the music for the duration of the specific noise and replay it. That would be a cool use of AI.
So you don't even need Android or iOS for this feature and it's been a thing on certain headsets for a while; both my Sony headphones and buds do this.
It also has an integration with the phone which can add GPS awareness but it works fine without it in my experience.
I genuinely had a similar thought a few days ago while riding my motorbike; I had my AirPods on with noise cancelling, and I was like: I wish there was something that would alert me to horns/bells ... not that AirPods are super efficient at cancelling background noise but still!
If only people had spatial awareness, they would look around vs listening to their phone changing directions randomly while walking. The bell is for both persons safety.
750 Hz. Baby crying sound is around 300-400 Hz and let me tell you my airpods pro definitely let me hear the baby cry. I think Apple built that as an obvious safety feature.
Interestingly, all the shrillness noises (chalkboard, balloon or polystyrene screech) are in similar frequency too.
This might seem weird coming from a car manufacturer but Skoda is a big sponsor of cycling races, most notably of the Tour de France and other ASO races. And as explained in the footer, they started out with building bicycles in the 19th century.
I’m more afraid of cyclists than of cars. I know exactly where the road starts and end, I know there are traffic lights drivers and pedestrians usually respect, so it’s very unlikely that I can get hit by a car. And Im talking about myself, not about the average person (I know stats may say otherwise)
But cyclists can ride in the pedestrian lane, bike lanes and pedestrians lanes are not easily distinguishable (if you are visiting a new city/country for example, and/or the painting of the lanes disappear over time) compared to roads, you typically can hear cars/motorbikes coming (though with electric cars that’s less common) while bikes are very silent, and last but not least, typically there is certain hierarchy when it comes to cars and pedestrians (at least in Europe): pedestrians come first. That’s not the case with bikes (which based on my experience, they share the same level of importance with pedestrians in the streets)
More or less at the time when electric bicycles weighing over 20kg and moving over 30kmh started to drive on sidewalks, I started to avoid living in big cities.
On a serious note there’s a marketing problem in my view: who out there who chooses to buy a bell even considers that their might be a loudness problem? It’s not immediately obvious that I need this and I’m sure there’s a premium price attached.
The problem with headphones is not noise cancellation. It’s the fact they play music.
My regular Widek bell penetrates ANC, but when there’s music, ANC or not, it’s hard to hear. I’m struggling to believe the claims this bell is going to be significantly better.
If this bell gets through ANC then yes it will help people with ANC. It's not an all or nothing situation, you hear it further away for each increase in loudness.
Also, ANC let's you reduce your music volume for the same signal to noise ratio.
i’m on airpods pro 3, and it’s far from producing noise-cancellation so powerful as to require such measures. perhaps if I’m listening to heavy music at ear-damaging levels. maybe my hearing is too sensitive.
Absolutely crazy to be out in traffic with headphones, lead alone noise cancelling ones. I've never even dared to ride my bike on trails with earbuds, the whole thing seems crazy.
Living in a city you cannot stand so much that you wear noise cancelling headphones at all times. Commuting to work that you hate and manoeuvring between zombies looking at their phones, wearing noise cancelling headphones, and occasional cars recklessly opening doors or joining the traffic without looking in the mirrors. You even forgot the original goal of saving money because the rent eats 50% of the net salary and work eats every will to live. Here it is - the fruit of your glorious education and mean by which your mortgage is paid is bicycle bell. Thanks for reminding me to stay away from this miserable mess.
It's not about the cyclists wearing ANC headsets (which is already prohibited at least in Euro countries), but about pedestrians wearing them. Another problem altogether.
In effect they are, even if not directly. There are requirements to stay aware of your surroundings. If you cause an accident by blocking all sounds, I totally can see insurance companies claiming this is your own responsibility and refusing to cover.
hopefully this is because it's a prototype, but doesn't solve the #1 problem with these type of thumb-lever rotating bells: everything (including the axle) is plastic and they break if you look at them funny. The hammer-type with plastic hammers or hinges don't work either; maybe solve the "actually make a noise" problem first.
the experimental report pdf is a fun read. it would be cool if they added each individual bell of the duobell and the combination to tables 4 and 5. (the topline result is in the infographic, but it would be cool to see the effects of the individual contributions of the various features and how they combine)
Here's my hot take: just get rid of bicycle bells and horns altogether. When's the last time you heard one and were usefully informed about some behavioral change to avoid accident? How often does that happen as opposed to needless use of the bell/horn, or not noticing it for whatever reason (let's be charitable and exclude use of ANC headphones, but include general noise levels and boy-who-cried-wolf). How often is it just a jump scare, making traffic less safe?
Just ride/drive a bit more thoughtfully so you don't hurt people, even if they're deaf.
Bike bells are useful for me most weekends to let me know there's a bike soon to overtake me while I'm skating.
Headphones on folks while they're out walking is ridiculous and antisocial and if they get hit because they didn't hear a bell then they had it coming. I only use a single earbud at a time so I don't lose my situational awareness entirely, but even that can still wash out the rest of the world noise pretty well.
my Bose quite comfort headphones will still allow any non-regular noise through, I believe that is by design for this very reason. Do other brands not do this?
My trick after biking 10+ years in Amsterdam. Never use your bicycle bell, instead try to predict their trajectory and bike around it.
Ringing your bell is always a gamble because everyone responds differently
Oh great let’s have even more noise pollution because pedestrians won’t get out of the way of cyclists who are trying to beat their personal best time on their commute to work.
It wouldn't be a problem if pedestrians weren't blocking cycling paths completely while apparently forgetting their hearing aids at home. Some people have even less situational awareness than common sense.
What if you would rather stay in the bicycle lane instead of terrorizing pedestrians? Quite a lot of taxes were paid for those lanes. Use them, and stay out of my headset.
I carry air horn. Great for dogs and aggressive cyclists. Pedestrians have no obligation to jump into ditch, to clear walking path for speeding cyclists!
In Germany we have rules, and one of those rules is that pedestrians on the sidewalk who are in the cyclepath (usually a too-subtle red stone) do, in fact, have to get out of the way for cyclists.
I imagine there's also a rule about directing airhorns against law abiding cyclists.
> In Germany we have rules, and one of those rules is that pedestrians on the sidewalk who are in the cyclepath (usually a too-subtle red stone) do, in fact, have to get out of the way for cyclists.
Yeah that's the problem, it's often too subtle and hard to notice.
That's why bike lanes should be dedicated with a stone barrier/kerb, or bikes should just not be allowed there.
That's nice and all, but the onus is really on the person walking on shared paths with noise cancelling headphones. My bell works fine, and I ring it before passing peds as the law requires, so I don't intend to waste money on a new bell anytime soon.
I always hate having my headphones on ANC on the street. It makes me feel really exposed and disconnected. I tend to use transparency when out and about.
I don't know where you're from, but in Germany for example, there are countless situations where cyclists and pedestrians share the same space, or pedestrians can (or just do…) cross bicycle lanes. I'm a very law-abiding cyclist since witnessing a few horrible accidents, and yet I encounter situations with headphone-wearing pedestrians regularly. Often I'll ring my bell to no avail, until driving right up to them, and they still won't hear me. This is really frustrating; I'm definitely in the market for this.
> I'm a very law-abiding cyclist since witnessing a few horrible accidents, and yet I encounter situations with headphone-wearing pedestrians regularly. Often I'll ring my bell to no avail, until driving right up to them, and they still won't hear me. This is really frustrating; I'm definitely in the market for this.
I’m guessing some law (law-abiding) gives you the right to bother people who are using their own feet instead of wheels because you want to pass them and they should have to actively watch out for you and yield to you? Okay, that part is fine. But I don’t see how it is nice or, I dunno, ethical.
In my experience (in my locale) as a cyclist you either give pedestrians a wide enough berth, dismount so that you can pass them if it is crowded and there is no passage, or use the vehicular road.
I remember violating this one time when I belled someone that I wanted to pass on the sidewalk. But I was a child at the time. Even more self-centered than I am now.
These seeming rules for yielding to cyclists are worse than the laws and norms when cars interact with bicycles, by the way. At least where I am: cars never honk cyclists. They have to wait for them or find a window to pass them safely. They can’t honk them into the ditch or something.
> I’m guessing some law (law-abiding) gives you the right to bother people who are using their own feet instead of wheels because you want to pass them and they should have to actively watch out for you and yield to you? Okay, that part is fine. But I don’t see how it is nice or, I dunno, ethical.
No. There are just people who will walk on a designated bicycle lane because they haven't seen the signage, are ignorant or careless about it, or will just cross it to get somewhere else. All while wearing ANC headphones. This isn't about bothering someone, but warning them. It's really no different from someone jaywalking without seeing you, and honking to make them aware of that. Or are you supposing you'd just break and wait until they're finished crossing the street?
I am aware that most countries do not have dedicated roads for cyclists, but that doesn't mean that cyclists should be using sidewalks. When I go out and walk on the sidewalk, I expect to be able to just walk safely without having to think about potential riders of bicycles or other things that people ride on sidewalks.
Then it's a stupid law. But from the image that other commenter gave, it does look like Germany has space that is clearly intended for cyclists, and I have no issue with that. I have issue with instances when people cycle on sidewalks intended for pedestrians.
It's not always as clearly demarcated as on that picture; sometimes there's just a sign.
I would also argue that a reasonably broad way for pedestrians and bicyclists can be shared without any issue, if both parties pay some modicum of attention to their surroundings and treat each other with mutual respect: Pedestrians by keeping to the right side of the path, and cyclists by slowing down when overtaking and ringing the bell to let people know they are approaching.
If just slowing down helps to prevent an accident, not sure what the bell would be good for - except for signaling your frustration to everyone around you
Edit 2: I originally didn’t think of the case when you want to warn pedestrians that you are passing (without asking them to give way) in case they decide to switch direction without looking if there is any incoming entities. That seems legitimate to me. Although giving a wide enough berth might be better than doing it routinely (that could amount to a lot of noise eventually).
Edit: Since people seem to go either way: It is my understanding that in my part of the world (in Scandinavia) cyclists do not have the right of way on sidewalks (which means they can’t bell people away). They also (and I know this one) do not have the right of way while cycling across road crossings. Something that most cyclists, in my experience, violate all the time.
Quite. It drives me up the wall when cyclists not only use the sidewalk close enough to me to practically graze me (pedestrian), but expect me to actively pay attention and yield to them. Use the road, dummy (there are scarce few bicycle lanes).
I use regular headphones (not over-ear and not really noise canc.) on the sidewalk but take them off when I am crossing the street. And I of course am mindful of other pedestrians. But I’m not gonna take them off because some two-wheeler thinks they can ram into me unless I jump out of the way on the sidewalk.
At least here in Austria, I honestly rarely, if ever, see them do that. Either roads or dedicated/mixed designated cycle paths. We do have enforcement even against cyclists, though more than anything, that catches all the "unlocked" e-bikes, because cycling on the sidewalks is not a thing anyone does.
Even with bikes being off the sidewalk, there is need for a quick way of getting others pedestrians attention.
As a cyclist in London, I’ve hit one pedestrian: they stepped backward(!) into a cycle lane. I had nowhere to go, as there was a curb on the other side. Pedestrian behaviour is just totally wild with respect to cycle lanes, a lot of them are just totally oblivious. If you cycle, you will come across people walking along or stepping into dedicated cycle lanes several times during the average commute.
e.g.: In Amsterdam you cross biking lanes to cross the roads sometimes, or bike lanes and sidewalks are so integrated, you can wander into them without noticing.
Being tired in a crowded street in rainy weather doesn't help either.
Well, sure, as soon as infrastructure exists so the alternative isn't "get run over by a homicidal driver". And actual infrastructure, not painted lines that typically get filled up with double-parking cars.
This is always an odd one, as it’s the people who look like they just found a bike in a skip and decided to ride around here that cycle on the pavements.
this was not really an issue before food delivery apps came into fashion
btw. kids up until certain age can pretty much in all countries ride bike legally on sidewalk, are there any countries where 8yo can't ride bike on sidewalk?
It's a problem in the US where bicycle food delivery is really rare. Even in places with good bike lanes, they'll often prefer the sidewalk because if there is some sort of obstacle in the bike lane (e.g. a car that parked illegally), it won't jump out of the way for them like a pedestrian with a sense of self-preservation, which would mean they might have to slow down.
This seems to be part of a type of brand marketing where a brand claims it has invented something, but the only thing that ever exists of significant economic value is the attention raised by the promo video / article. Not the thing/service.
Examples:
- Samsung safety truck https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6GNGfse9ZK8
- Citroën motion sickness glasses https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Aco63dlq_WE
- Amazon Prime Air https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2AVVTBmtDdo
- IBM Smart Ads https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vbEMVdzXiCY (implies they created lots of ad posters, but they only made 3 posters for this video)
- Lexus Hoverboard https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TFf7Meqkim8
I wonder if there is a term for this. "Vaporware marketing"?
I love these types of videos because they create this fiction of how design happens, where people sit around a table with drawings and or come up with beautiful mock-ups (the motion sickness glasses is a good example). Often, a lot of design decisions are super obvious and don't require a lot of sweat and collaboration to come up with, but in videos they're made to appear very difficult as it presents better. And other things are super messy, but you're not going to show that as it's hard to communicate.
Yeah a lot of this is a very very cleaned up, performative version of design process. It's like its own subgenre. Original thinking is wild, feral, messy, often solo tho heavily influenced by the context around you. None of that presents well.
However I bristle at the idea that core design decisions are usually super obvious, even when the end results are. Not sure this is even your point so forgive the tangent if not, but this issue is my particular hill to die on, it's 100% the single biggest gap in understanding that I see between those that regularly engage in original creative work vs those who do not.
People see something obvious and say "That's simple, I could have come up with that!" But that's all hindsight, like saying "I could have bought bitcoin in 2010!" It's not even wrong, it's answering an entirely different question of capability, not probability.
The question is would you have come up with that, were you tasked with the problem and put in the same context? I'd estimate for most great-but-simple inventions, it's not many people who could plausibly say that, because so much of what we bring to bear on problems comes from our own histories and unique perspectives & influences, not to mention talents and predilections.
This distinction between could vs would is core to understanding creative output, especially the ideas that are the simplest to use or understand. The delta between understanding vs coming up with there is often vast; simple things are often the hardest things of all to conceive.
I'm in total agreement regarding some designs that seem obvious later but really took several iterations to reach. There's definitely hindsight bias when a design works so well that it feels obvious.
My point was more that I've seen product demos where parts of a product were presented as having been pored over painstakingly when in reality it was decided on day one that it would work that way. However, because it's a prominent feature, it feels cheap to show the reality, so I get that for demos there's a bit of storytelling that goes into it so the audience feels like it was a revelation.
For UX that I've designed myself, I have definitely found that a lot of the great ones required a ton of iteration and almost "courage" to go against my initial bright ideas and look at things from a different perspective. It often required taking away elements that I thought were absolutely required at first but later realized made more sense to go without. If someone were to look at the final result, they would definitely think "Well, obviously that's how it should work." But more likely they'd have go through a similar journey that I did to come up with it if they hadn't seen the solution.
In a way it's like finding out how a magic trick worked. It's only obvious in retrospect.
A magic trick is a good way to put it, especially for laypeople. I see your point and agree, it's always hard to know going in which ideas you're going to one-shot (and be slightly embarrassed about having one-shotted) and which only come from the courage to kill early darlings and continue down the road of uncertainty.
We're fortunate if we even get that latter opportunity, given most want to take the easy path and cargo cult someone else's idea. The thing I've noticed is that the hard path to continue the exploration often gives the cargo cult answer but with a nuance or two for one's context that make all the difference. I'm curious if you have experienced that as well.
> People see something obvious and say "That's simple, I could have come up with that!"
That's the problem with user interface design as a career. It takes a lot of effort to create simple to understand and simple to use design, and then when users see them, they see it is simple and think it must have been easy to do. Most programmers tend to make programs for themselves and other technical people and has horrible design. The classic corollary example I like is when Apple came up with MP3 players and marketed as 'It can hold 1000 songs' instead of the current marketing at the time 'It has has 1GB of storage'. Technical folks would not be satisfied with 1000 songs becuase they would be doing back of the math calculations on how low of a bitrate you have to get, in order to fit 1k songs in a given space... while the other 95% of the population doesn't want to do any math, and if even if they did, they don't know.. or at least back then, didn't know what a GB was, or how many megabytes an MP3 consumed....
Indeed. UI/UX is actually a pretty shitty career unless you are good enough to regularly pull rabbits out of your hat. At the low end it's just drawing boxes and using someone else's tricks in a system that isn't even the codebase. At the mid end you get the codebase and might occasionally solve interesting problems, but you'll rarely get the recognition and influence equal to its value. Only at the high end do you start getting the rewards, but they tend not to last very long because people quickly adapt to seeing your solutions as obvious.
It's why designers, and creatives more generally, try to cultivate a mystique around themselves, even(/especially?) when they're only mid. The truth is creative work is a lot more playful than it is mysterious, but play is not valued, only mystery is. This leaves many creatives stuck in tension between their internal and external identities.
Their dealers already sell a bike bell, eg. in NZ at https://store.skoda.co.nz/products/bicycle-bell
and in IE at https://www.skoda-accessories.ie/ie/en/p/bicycle-bell/SK-000...
There is a Czech shop listing for the old bell at https://eshop.skoda-auto.cz/en_CZ/bicycle-bell/p/000050305C
Presumably the new bell will eventually appear among the other items at https://eshop.skoda-auto.cz/en_CZ/cycling-accessories/c/cycl... and in their bike order catalog PDF at https://www.skoda-auto.com/services/bikes-cycling
To be fair, I think Prime Air is real, but I've only heard about it when they've had drone crashes: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NGdOpR-Mv-E
AFAIK it's only available in a few very specific places (seemingly for good reason).
Any innovation benefiting cyclists and coming from the auto industry is a way to move attention away from the fact that cars are the most dangerous thing on the road.
Well, obviously. What else did you expect to be the most dangerous thing on roads? Sharks?
Statistically the answer is probably cop cars or motorcycles.
trucks? Or they still considered cars?
A tank.
Or a Ford f150: https://www.jalopnik.com/youre-not-wrong-american-trucks-and...
I thought the use case would be for cyclists to alert runners with NC headphones that the cyclist is about to pass them
There's at least a paper to download: https://cdn.skoda-storyboard.com/2026/04/Skoda-DuoBell-Resea...
Jokes on them for the wasted resources. If they don’t intend to market, I hope someone will. Where I live cyclists use ANC headphones all the time, and I’m tired of the near misses.
Student cyclists that ignore the rules and wear ANC (or even large headphones) should be fined more often.
You seem to have misunderstood the invention. It’s not about cyclists wearing headphones.
I haven’t. It breaches through ANC, pedestrian or otherwise, which would help with cyclists as well.
Bicycle bells can be used to warn other cyclists
Not if they wear thick or noise-cancelling headphones.
I think you nailed it. You can't even buy this bike bell, as far as I can see.
It may get added to https://eshop.skoda-auto.cz/en_CZ/cycling-accessories/c/cycl...
Why is significant economic value the metric for success?
Skoda publishes the research and design openly (no patent, no product for sale), to solve a real problem (increase in bike-related accidents from noise cancelling headphones), to ensure that the safety outcome can be spread as quickly and easily as possible.
We should be celebrating companies that open source material findings related to safety, not lambasting them for not exploiting it for maximum value.
it feels disingenuous to lump this in with most of the other items you listed.
I think the Citroen ones are just a bit different, as in, there are actually products available to buy apparently: https://www.amazon.com/seetroen/s?k=seetroen
I'm not sure IBM Smart Ads were ever an actual product/invention, and Prime Air is a live service (albeit geographically limited): https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amazon_Prime_Air
The original Boosted Boards Kickstarter video has a lot of this energy:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IWV8irg64oM
i think the slightly less cynical interpretation of this is that it's not marketing, it's an employee morale booster.
some skoda employees got to have fun with this. just like the amazon engineers got to have fun building drones for a while. letting the engineers out to play every now and then is cheaper than just giving raises. the shiny marketing videos gives the people who worked on the project something to show off to their friends.
i can't imagine the actual marketing value here really does anything for the company.
I first thought it was a 1st April joke. But the date is wrong.
Innovationwashing, maybe?
Coincidentally, I bought a 12v car horn yesterday with the intent of wiring it into my ebike's power supply with a little button on my handlebars.
Not because of other cyclists or pedestrians wearing (anc) headphones but because modern cars are so heavily sound-proofed they don't hear a bicycle bell anymore. A recent incident with an inattentive taxi driver in a brand new EV nearly flattening me prompted me to want to pursue this.
I'm still waiting for my cheap AliExpress dc-to-dc step down converter but otherwise I have everything I need and I think it should work. The horn module itself is definitely loud enough: I connected it to a 12v power supply at my desk and jumped out of my chair.
Be careful with your ears! (And those of others)
A unexpected loud noise recently caused me to get tinnitus and hyperacusis, and trust me, you don't want either of them!
You know a diagnose is bad when Wikipedia lists suicidal thoughts as a common side effect....
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hyperacusis
May I ask what the loud noise was? And sorry to hear that. Tinnitus and hyperacusis suck.
A small firework rocket that someone launched sideways instead of up exploded within a few meters of me.
I say small but I mean tiny. One of those that are sound only, no visuals.(Why are those even a thing?)
Bottle rockets I assume. I had a lot of fun with them as a kid. Thankfully no one involved with those got hurt.
https://www.nhpyro.com/black-cat-bottle-rockets.html
Yeas ago I motorcycled a lot, all over the world. I escalated to an air horn and hi-viz. But I pretty quickly realized that these made no tangible difference to the behavior of larger vehicle drivers. So I ended up for later vehicles with a stock horn and hi-viz only for heavy rain.
These days our family cycles a lot for commuting. It’s really easy to observe that people in vehicles treat us far better if we look like humans, wearing normal street clothes, rather than wearing high-viz or, far worse, cycling gear.
The bike bell is for polite notice, not alarming. The best alarm system you have is your voice, which is variable volume and tone. For ultimate effect slap the panels of cars, as it is very loud inside the vehicle.
Second the fact that it's only useful for polite notice. Emergency, someone's already not paying attention and it's probably the car.
Car horns are useful warnings because speeds are higher and thus stopping time is longer--more opportunity for someone to hear and react.
Slapping panels in the US will occasionally get people trying to fight you, as I've had happen. Not really sure what a good solution to that looks like short of cultural changes.
As a pedestrian I slapped a panel of a slow car that failed to yield to me at a crossing. The driver glared at me and looked ready to reverse into me. I never slapped any panel any more.
Sadly I had to kick a few cars that thought they could run me off my motorcycle. Worked every time. All of them didn't look out the window or they would have looked right into my face. Yelling and horn did absolutely nothing.
Most of them were extremely apologetic or even shocked (as if I appeared from thin air). None of them were angry for scratching their door. Some people are just lost in thought it seems...
> or even shocked (as if I appeared from thin air)
Motorcyclists are invisible. Never rely on others seeing you, ride as if they're an obstacle you have to navigate.
You can hide a whole truck behind the A-pillar of modern cars, let alone a motorcycle. At certain angles, human eyes have complete blind spots that we're not aware of because our brain filters them out. Motorcycles fit perfectly into those.
Never hover in people's blind spots. Pass quickly or stay back. Do not drive parallel with another vehicle. Goes for cars too.
When approaching another car perpendicularly (like an intersection), remember that humans lose depth perception because their nose covers one of the eyes. A driver literally cannot tell how far you are. Our usual proxy is the distance between headlights. Motorcyles have 1 headlight so this heuristic doesn't work, but we don't realize that it doesn't.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x94PGgYKHQ0
Yup. If you don't have armor around you the only real defense is to assume you are invisible unless you know they've seen you or can't help but see you (for example, going in the traffic direction in front of a stopped car that's waiting to go--they're looking at the cars, they'll see anything else coming along.) Doesn't matter if you have wheels or feet under you, you still are invisible.
Oh I know. They look at me while turning left cutting me off.
Maybe I need a bigger bike, the 2cyl 400cc is particularly invisible. ;)
Best one was a woman who cut me off doing her left turn. I high-beamed her and honked. She put her hands in front of her face and came to a dead stop in my lane directly in front of me. I was already braking before I honked. Nothing happened. I stopped wondering and just assume everyone is out to kill me.
It's a rule that also applies to bicycles.
> I high-beamed her and honked. She put her hands in front of her face and came to a dead stop in my lane directly in front of me.
Personally I skip the honking and high beams. Just perform evasive action assuming driver will continue on their current path at roughly their current speed. Swerving behind their path of travel usually works great.
Spooked drivers behave erratically. Very dangerous.
So far I've had 0 serious incidents in ~8 years of riding. A couple close calls when I was being an idiot. So I think my approach is working :)
Honking is more for the people behind/around me. I also don't want to be hit by inattentive people following me to closely.
May I ask where you are riding? I am currently in Bavaria. The danger level is usually higher after the winter. Drivers need to re-accustom themselves to sharing the road with two wheeled riders.
Evasive action could be even more dangerous in cities. In my experience being able to come to a stop without hitting anything is even better.
Lot's of dead people had the right of way. Ride safe, I agree. I also had 0 accidents so far in 30 years. But you still experience new things you hadn't thought would be an issue.
> May I ask where you are riding?
San Francisco Bay Area. I never got into motorcycling back in Europe although the roads are lovely, the short riding season felt like a deterrent. Also the extremely long process to get a license.
Here in CA it was almost scary easy to get M certified.
Must be cool to have bike weather all year round. ;)
Yeah, snow and scooter/motorcycle is not a great mix here. But touring the Alps down to Lake Garda was amazing. Can recommend.
I want to see a bike with a train horn. Cars do it all the time. [1][2][3][4] illegal and highly satisfying
People have used drills+pumps to drive similar hand-held horns at football games so it is doable.
[1] - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NOKgg5iCw_c
[2] - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=enF0m6J7g2w [Tiny car with train horn]
[3] - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w31s5NsoOyg
[4] - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jLfD1AFsb1I
Oh yeah... the good old 3 or 4 tone "train" honrs from Cadillacs
https://www.tacomaworld.com/threads/are-you-tired-of-your-wi...
When I was commuting 60k/day on my bike in shitty suburban conditions, I used one of these instead - you get limited use per trip, but you can always fill it up with a CO2 cylinder/bike pump:
https://www.hpvelotechnik.com/en/recumbent-trikes-bikes/acce...
It is loud.
That’s a crappy pressure vessel holding 350ml of 80psi air, for about 100J of stored energy. I’m not entirely sure I’d be comfortable with that, especially anywhere with my face in the line of fire it it fails.
Your bike already has two crappy 80psi pressure vessels, why not three?
Those two pressure vessels are highly engineered and are wrapped with materials with pretty good tensile strength. Also, they’re made out of materials (fabric and rubber) that absorb a decent amount of energy when they tear and that don’t fragment. And the whole assembly usually depressurizes slowly.
Having personally blown up beverage bottles by overpressurizing them (be very very careful doing this!), when they go, they go violently.
I've blown up beverage bottles for fun. Hooking an air compressor to a 2L bottle and exploding it makes a satisfyingly loud boom.
*We had a valve on the air line so we could be at a safe distance when pressurizing. Be very careful. It's unpredictable exactly at which point they'll blow. Sometimes they hold full pressure for a couple seconds and then go.*
i like to use dry ice for pressure, make sure you have a gun to shoot it if it doesn't go off
When we did it, it always went off on its own. It's been a long time since I did it, but I think the longest it took would've been on the order of 30 seconds. Really makes a person jump when it finally goes.
Because the danger posed by a fairly low energy pressure vessel is highly related to it's failure mode. That's why OSHA has rules about what compressed air pipes can be made of--it's not about the pressure resistance, it's about what will happen if one fails.
It's likewise why most military boom is mostly not actually boom. With artillery you obviously need a very tough case, but standard aircraft-dropped iron bombs are mostly that: iron. They don't need that kind of strength except specialized bunker-busters, they're built that way because for a given weight of bomb you'll do more damage by throwing bits of bomb casing from a smaller charge than from a bigger charge without the fragments.
If this is a modern bike, 80psi is way too high. 50psi is sufficient and will give you a more comfortable ride as well as higher efficiency on real-world surfaces.
80+psi is for old-style road bikes with narrow 23mm tires. Modern bikes (even road bikes for racing) don't use these any more; 28mm is the minimum these days.
Not to be pendantic (but to be pendantic) 80psi is the correct pressure for 28mm tires ridden briskly on good roads. At least according to ye olde Silca tire pressure calculator. Back in the day when folks ran 23mm tires they would typically run above 100psi (though that may not have been optimal...).
That calculator is wrong. Cycling people have been overinflating their tires for ages (as well as using too-narrow tires), with the assumption that the ground is perfectly smooth. Lower pressures yield higher efficiency (and better comfort) on rougher surfaces.
Surface quality is an input in that calculator.
… I have a modern bike (a Specialized). The tires' rated range is 75psi to 100psi. I usually pump it to around 80–85psi. The tires are 33mm.
You're overinflating your tires. A lower pressure will increase your speed and efficiency unless you're riding in a velodrome. Here's a video about this:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7r8f3w89XeM
(watch out, there's a lot of extra stuff in this video about the machine they use to measure efficiency)
(Well, they should tell the manufacturers…)
The video's result for both tires they tested was peak efficiency at 5 bar. They had a really coarse sampling of a whole bar, so that works out to a pressure of 65–80 psi.
>(Well, they should tell the manufacturers…)
The manufacturer rating is likely a max allowable pressure rating.
> That’s a crappy pressure vessel
That's a huge assumption, and likely incorrect.
It's a soda bottle - it fits in your water bottle holder, and you can replace it for a couple of bucks if it fails. 80 psi is pretty low pressure (typical narrow tires are 100-120) and the bottle itself is very low mass, so the fabric around the bottle should ensure safety if it bursts.
IIRC these came out in the early-mid 90s; a bike messenger trick at the time was to fasten the horn to your handlebars with velcro, so you could take it off and hold it near a car window when triggering it.
I suppose I should maybe not worry about 80 psi so much. An ordinary bottle of soda on a moderately warm day is around 80psi. The energy is 1/2 * pressure * head space (roughly), and head space is minimal. But you can chill it in the fridge, then open it and quickly pour out half, then close it and let it warm up, and you may still be near 80 psi, and I’ve never heard of anyone getting maimed by an exploding soda bottle.
If it fails by blowing the end off toward your face what damage will it do?
Good point, but I abused it pretty well and it seemed to do OK - was also in a water bottle holder so closer to the legs than anything.
> When I was commuting 60k/day on my bike in shitty suburban conditions
Here I thought my 4.5 mile (7.25 km) bike commute was a bit long...
An hour and a bit each way, took about as much time as public transit and better than a coffee for waking up. A good road bike goes a long way, and the suburbs suck for road sharing but are great for not having to stop at many lights.
The winters were rough though.
I used to bike ~20 mi / day … back when there were offices. Just as fast as public transit.
Aside from idiots with cars, it's relaxing. Only some of my route was on the road, though.
Like the other poster says … The winters were rough though. I just didn't bike, though my coworker kept trying to get me to.
Can confirm, AirZound is great!
Yeah I had something like this for several years. Works really well for cars
I wonder if one of those recently-emerging Chinese electric blowers that sub for canned air would generate enough air volume to sound the horn usefully. Possibly not quickly enough.
I did that, but I used battery - couldn't figure out how to hook up to the e-bike's 50v electrical system (plus the DC-DC converter with high enough current...)
So I am using LiPo 3S, 2200mAh. Works like a charm. I keep it at its storage voltage (3.7-3.8v per cell), and it hardly drained the battery (there is no paracitic drain). Whole thing was like $20.
I pondered doing that but thought it would agitate other road users so decided against.
Some locales are downright itching for a reason to road rage so I don’t blame you. One thing I have to say about being a motorcyclist is that our residents in California are so considerate and have never once mistreated me for beeping, lane splitting/filtering, stalling my bike at a green light, etc.
mm, if i can't get it to work with the dc-dc converter i'll definitely go that route, good idea
If diy doesn’t work I’ve been using loud bicycle horn and it works great.
https://loudbicycle.com/
Gah! mini usb instead of USB C. Love the concept but it is remarkable how long bike accessories have been holding out on USBC.
At least they’re forward about it - I’ve lost count of how many bike accessories claimed to be USB C, but they only charge when connected to their specialized cable that converts from USB A to C.
Double-sided USB-C connections require a handshake before sending voltage. USB-A ports can have the 5v line active at all times. Cheap USB C gadgets often don't make the handshake, they just use it as a 5V input, necessitating an A to C cable.
If you add 5.1kΩ pulldown resistors on the CC lines for USB-C, you can get the standard 5V without a handshake although current may be limited by some chargers without negotiation.
I think you're overstating this. The "handshake" is purely 2 simple resistors correctly installed. The problem is a lot of folks do it wrong for various reasons, most likely never testing with anything more than type a to type c cables.
https://people.kernel.org/bleung/how-to-design-a-proper-usb-...
One of the many deficiencies of usb-c (who knows what power your cable supports, charger supports, if you accessory will charge, of it will connect at all)
Interesting. Does UsBC spec/licensing require any sort of notation for products that don’t implement handshake?
There is no handshake, all that's needed are two 5.1 kΩ pulldown resistors. By omitting them the manufacturer saved all of about 0.1c and made their device incompatible with compliant usb-c chargers.
More info: https://hackaday.com/2023/02/07/all-about-usb-c-manufacturer...
Such products shouldn’t exist by spec, they’re just not compliant.
I'm still waiting on full-size usb-c instead of current mini-usb-c
I’ve got one of these fwiw, and it’s outstanding.
> because modern cars are so heavily sound-proofed they don't hear a bicycle bell anymore
Agreed. I had a supercharged V8 Jaguar that I could barely hear.
And my Audi has a system that actually pumps engine noise into the cabin, so you can hear that, but not the outside world.
The Fire Department I was at was looking at "thumpers" - augmentations to sirens that make cars in front of them vibrate (a la those people playing too much bass too loud).
Not just sound proofing, but inattentiveness. I've been behind people on semi-rural quiet roads with my 40,000lb fire engine behind them, lights, sirens, and airhorns, and they've driven for a mile or two completely oblivious.
if you ever want an upgrade look into nautilus air horns. I had one on my 250cc Vespa that would clear an intersection.
Needs like 18 amps if that tells you anything.
> I bought a 12v car horn yesterday with the intent of wiring it into my ebike's power supply
Putting an aerosol fog horn (available from boating supply shops) in the bikes water bottle holder is much simpler, louder and more effective.
And where does your water bottle go then?
Courtesy forbids me from suggesting where it could go.
for your safety, when people hear a car horn, they’re going to be looking for a car.
It should make a ring-ring sound but at 120 decibels?
Ooh, the telephones in the 80s! You should get one of those!
A motorcycle horn might be a better choice
on the rare occasions where I need to loudly indicate my presence to a motor vehicle I wouldn't really want to be moving my hands - if I have time to move a hand to a horn I probably have time to brake/manouvre instead.
Generally in those situations I shout really loudly at the driver, and in general they seem to hear me
Aside: folks living near bike paths where this happens are going to suffer. I don't know what the solution is, but increasing volume to defeat increasing sound-proofing seems like a recipe for noise pollution.
I had a digital bell from aliexpress on my winter commuter because pogies on the bars prevented a typical dinger. It was very annoying and very effective; my wife referred to it as "the friend maker".
Seconding the point to please not use this on anyone not in a soundproofed car.
Squeeze horns are usually loud enough to be heard by cars in my experience.
LOL. I put the loudest 12V train/air horn I could buy on my 60 mph escooter with a 72V to 12V buck converter and a motorcycle handlebar button. It was pretty easy to install. (I added a fuse too.) Stupid motorized vehicle drivers get the horn of doom.
I'm very sceptical of their claims that ~780Hz is in some way special, especially the way they represent it graphically. Playing a frequency sweep while wearing WH-1000XM3 headphones, I don't notice any particular drop-off there.
Near where I live, heavy goods vehicles are fitted with reversing indicators that make a "cshh cshh cshh" sound i.e. pulsed white-noise. White noise like that is the hardest for ANC to cancel. Sample: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A3Wt1_51EVA
Right? This feels like an "arms race" similar to scraping vs. anti-scraping; countermeasures will be developed, likely due to the action of actors entirely disconnected from what you're doing, but to block something else in the ecosystem... and you'll need to re-engineer your approach entirely. Rinse and repeat.
(The amount of innovation in anti-anti-scraping that's resulted from "sneaker bots" - automated scalping of limited-edition shoe releases - is astounding, and somewhat relevant here in how an environment can become adversarial in ways that impact broad ecosystems. I suppose the equivalent here would be environmental ads that seek to penetrate noise-cancellation in a similar way.)
I suppose, though, that all this is good news for a company that wants to turn your bicycle bell into a subscription product!
I don't see why this would become an "arms race." There's no particular competitive value in filtering out this ONE sound.
I think there's a broader indication of an arms race between noise cancellation systems and things that want to be heard, like advertising. And this just-happening-to-exist bandpass that the DuoBell is depending on could easily become collateral damage in that fight.
I was going to make a joke about advertisers working in some kind of ultrasonic modulation to their audio so it breaks ANC (I'm aware this wouldn't really work) but then thought, whats more likely, advertisers doing that, or advertisers partnering with 80% of ANC chip makers to just let them by-pass with specific tone markers...
Then we'll be hacking our headphones with specific 3d printed clip-ons that involve a particular brand of coffee filters that happen to attenuate the "clear freq" enough for the headphones to miss it.
"Dad, why do our coffee filters advertise that they can run fast fourier transforms?"
"Well, kid, back in the year 2026, there was this bicycle bell.."
The construction site next door is using those vehicles, and they're also a lot more pleasant throughout the day. It's easier to tune out white noise than beeping. The first cshh is a little louder than the others, which is a nice design touch.
Speak for yourself, I can tune out a steady beep much easier than the sound of a seagull being strangled to death. (That's what the ones around here sound like anyway.)
On a more serious note: the loud beeping backup alarms were DESIGNED to be annoying and difficult to miss. I would not be surprised in the least if a study showed these "less annoying" backup alarms correlating to a higher number of children being run over by reversing vehicles.
There have been studies and those resulted in the less annoying backup sounds. These sounds are essentially harsh white noise, which has one significant difference to the beeping: it's level drops off differently with distance, meaning you can blast it louder and people who are really in the wrong spot will notice better it means them, while people who are not meant will not be annoyed or fatigued by it. Two noise sources combine different than two tonal sources and the human ear can locate broadband sources better than single tones.
This was developed especially for use in backup heavy environments like harbors where workers started ignoring constant beeps.
There's also another difference: beeps can reflect coherently off of surfaces, causing directionality confusion in a dense environment. White noise is much less likely to have odd interference patterns, maximizing our ability to localize the sound.
Me too, as soon as I saw this I put on my Anker Soundcore noise-cancelling earbuds and fired up my AAS Multiphonics CV-3 software synthesizer. Sweeping a sine oscillator, there was zero difference in perceived volume in the 750-780 Hz range.
Right. From the article:
Through acoustic testing, the research team identified a narrow frequency band – a “safety gap” – capable of penetrating ANC headphone filters. This range lies between 750 and 780 Hz.
Is there a standard specifying this "safety band"? Is whatever Apple does for AirPods a de-facto standard?
On my wh-1000xm2, wh-1000xm3, wf-1000xm4 and lastly wf-1000xm5, there is a quite high frequency pitch (usually coincides with some public transport beeps, and some accidental squeaking of doors) that toggles ANC to transparent mode automatically. I remember reading something about this on Sony's support website.
My XM4's always do that at the beeps from the cash register, although I always attributed that to their volume rather than frequency. My theory was that they refuse to produce sound loud enough to cancel the beeps for safety reasons.
I suspect as much too. If there's a failure to match the noise perfectly then the headphones are just going be be blasting a loud sound into your ears. And if it matches the frequency correctly but lines up with the sound instead of being out of phase, then it's acting as an amplifier!
Also triggered by baby screams unfortunately
An evolutionary adaptation to ensure parents wearing headphones don't ignore their babies.
We don't ignore him. I wear headphones while soothing him.
I have a new idea for a bike horn.
Please do not duct tape a baby to your handle bars.
That diagram is pure marketing nonsense. The real chart is on page 10 of their paper[1]. It shows a modest ~3dB less attenuation around 800Hz across several brands.
[1] https://cdn.skoda-storyboard.com/2026/04/Skoda-DuoBell-Resea...
The actual research paper shows it's pure nonsense
https://cdn.skoda-storyboard.com/2026/04/Skoda-DuoBell-Resea...
As expected ANC headphones cancel less noise at low frequencies so I guess the 780Hz is a trade off between high enough frequency to be a bell and low enough frequency to get attenuated a little bit less than high frequencies.
The research paper is pretty poor quality and this is mainly a marketing exercise.
It's fairly easy to test out: https://onlinetonegenerator.com/
Anecdotally, bells have always come through fairly clearly for me. They filter out lower tones, not higher + sine waves. Nothing about this adds up to more than any normal $5 bell, especially rotating ones which hammer repeatedly.
[flagged]
> The "plausible sounding-text generator" generated plausible sounding text. More news at 11
Yeah, that's what LLMs do. Now is it true? Who knows!
The links Gemini references are also to articles about the Skoda bell, so it's just a circular reference to the same claim anyway.
Do horns and bells really prevent accidents?
In order for e.g. a horn to work you need enough time that the driver processes the situation and decides the horn will communicate something AND enough time for the pedestrian or whatever to process that and react to it. Generally it's a lot easier just to press the brake, and more importantly be travelling at a speed and in a manner where the brake is sufficient.
Structurally, we'd be much better off reducing conflicts between the different tiers of users. I.e. properly segregated infrastructure for each class of vehicle.
A horn or bell is mostly for telling other people "hey I'm here, stay out of my way and dont suddenly cross into my path"
My opinion as a cyclist is that I should basically only be using my bell on pedestrians when the pedestrians are wandering onto the bike lane. If im cycling through a shared space, I find it extremely rude to ring the bell, because it feels like I'm telling people to get out of my way, but they have just as much right to a shared path as I do. Some cyclists ring their bells because they're worried a pedestrian might suddenly turn into their path, but I think if one is concerned about that, it's a sign youre cycling too fast, and should just slow down.
With cars, I will sometimes proactively ring my bell at them if I think they're not sufficiently aware enough of me though.
>My opinion as a cyclist is that I should basically only be using my bell on pedestrians when the pedestrians are wandering onto the bike lane. If im cycling through a shared space, I find it extremely rude to ring the bell, because it feels like I'm telling people to get out of my way, but they have just as much right to a shared path as I do.
The culture around this varies a lot. I'm in Melbourne, Australia. Virtually all bike paths are "shared", and many have signs telling you to ring your bell when approaching pedestrians - you're not telling them to move out of the way, you're telling them that you're there.
In practice, I tend to use one ding to mean "I'm here" and multiple dings to mean "you're on the wrong side of the path and need to move".
But in no situation do I rely on a bike bell to avoid an accident.
I've always wanted two horns in my car: one that toots with a smile and a tip of the hat, and one that heralds your pending demise. It sounds like Australia cycle bell culture does that with short vs. long bell ding-a-lings.
Which is kind of how it has worked with cars, except I find that more and more cars have a style of horn that's hard to control with the necessary precision. Maybe this is Canadian culture but I get very anxious that my horn will honk for a millisecond too long and the poor victim will think I'm angry at them.
I can corroborate this finding -- I think the horn switch is just a logic-level digital switch going into one or more MCUs somewhere, subjected to all manner of latency and (probably) CANBUS jitter. It's not great. Trying to send Morse, or even a quick 'toot toot' results in a garbled mangled mess, and I find that very annoying. My early cars & motorbike had what felt like direct, switched control over power to the horn, those were great to use. I've debated installing a dedicated pushbutton rated for the amperage or at least controlling a solenoid somewhere that would power the horn.
As an experiment, I've found that you can reliably detect the presence of crummy horn control by trying to pulse the horn for the shortest amount of time possible. The shorter my push on the horn button gets, the more likely it is that the timing will feel wrong somehow, or the horn doesn't even sound at all.
I've definitely tried friendly beeps at friends or neighbors and it came out sounding like an angry honk.
The Ineos Grenadier 4x4 has a 'toot' function for cyclists, largely because Ineos is a sponsor of a cycling team.
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=PbGp24MIRDQ
go somewhere appropriate and do a little practice with the friendly multi-tap vs. the two-hand push!
adding on a wave helps too; I wish more drivers waved...
Reminds me of a mini-course I took on sound design. Lots of exercises in trying to squeeze expression out of a limited palette. Not too different from LEDs, but of course we have different cultural references for audio. Neat subject.
I hate how many cars I see these days with windows so tinted that eye contact and waves are impossible.
It feels dangerous to be unable to see the driver through their side window (eg. 4-way stop eye contact on who goes)
Agreed! It's a small but satisfying interaction to have that coordination and unspoken communication with other drivers at a 4-way stop.
I've taught my kids when crossing the street to make eye contact with drivers to make sure they see you. Drivers with smartphones unfortunately add to the challenge.
Some large trucks have that. A "city horn" that is like a normal car horn, and the traditional air horn that will rattle your windows.
my own experience is that in the city the bell was to alert people that I think aren't paying attention to me and may be about to step into the bike lane. 100% like you said, I'm letting someone know I'm there
Now that I moved to the country with a comprehensive rails-to-trail network, I thank all the cyclists that use the bell to let me know they're coming up behind me. What really irks me is the dudes going 30+mph silently coming up behind me, passing less than 2' from my dog (who is at my side) when there's PLENTY of room to give me space. No, we can't hear them coming all the time. Yes, it's startling, rude, and dangerous for all of us.
In Germany it's illegal to drive bikes that assist beyond 28km/h (about 20mph) in what are true bike paths (which can be built as lanes! And, notably, they can be marked as virtual-lane-shared (pictogram side by side with a vertical divider) or as true shared (pictogram above and below at a horizontal divider), if pedestrians are also allowed to use them.
An ancient gas-e-bike rating is allowed on them outside city limits but iirc those bikes are exceedingly rare since even before e-bikes became truly mainstream.
> you're telling them that you're there.
Which, IMO is important. Even if they aren't in your way, it can help avoid an accident. If you're on any sort of nicer, well maintained road bike, it's going to be near silent. I've startled pedestrians on mine, so I now ring my bell every time I'm approaching someone, not as a "get out of my way" signal but more of a "hey! I'm coming up behind you, don't get startled and jump into my path"
Generally though, if its a particularly crowded path, I just ride in the road. In stop and go city traffic I'm usually going as fast if not faster than traffic anyway.
Your right and I think local culture gets the difference between the escalating "move over! I've rung my bell 5 times already" vs. the light courtesy "coming up from behind" ring
I prefer to slow down and actually just say hello to them, they'll usually say sorry and I'm back on my way again. Just ringing a bell, or worse a horn, scares them and they need to turn round to figure out where you are and whether you're about to squash them. I don't feel I have the right to do that to someone just out enjoying a peaceful walk.
On the other hand, I've been angered by dog owners when running who just take up the entire pavement. A couple of weeks ago, I had one guy coming towards me force me to come to a complete stop when I was running flat out, because he couldn't be bothered to control his dogs. He was in the centre of the pavement, and the 2 dogs were at the extreme edges with tight enough leads between him and the dogs, so it'd have tripped me up if I'd tried to jump them. He knew full well I was heading that way, but in the 10 seconds since we had made eye contact, he was clearly determined not to reign his dogs in, and it was only when I was stopped and so he had to reign them in to continuing walking past that I was able to keep using the pavement.
>Just ringing a bell, or worse a horn, scares them and they need to turn round to figure out where you are and whether you're about to squash them. I don't feel I have the right to do that to someone just out enjoying a peaceful walk.
Yes, it's very context-dependent. I'm going to behave very differently in an area where there are hundreds of cyclists every hour compared to a place where there might be one or fewer.
The real trick with bell ringing is to try to get the distance right. Too far away and they won't hear. Too close and it might startle them, and they won't have enough time to react properly.
It's legally mandated in my city so I guess the polite thing to do is ring a bell, you know, just stick to the protocol, for everyone's sake. A bell however seems at least as likely to startle someone into behaving erratically as not.
As far as the pedestrian's safety is concerned what matters is either giving them a wide berth or slowing right down when passing.
Whether on a bike or not I'm sick of all the modern world's beeping and ringing and buzzing and blaring and if I'm wearing noise cancelling headphones that means I don't want to hear it. Don't tell you're being annoying for my own good because you aren't.
First reaction to warning tone should always be to (safely!) stop and assess.
Considering that the persons involved can't be expected to not be deaf, or functionally so via e.g. headphones, and thus you always have to be able to brake anyways. Running onto a driving lane (be it bikes or cars doesn't matter) without looking especially if the direction you didn't look just gave an audible warning is always reckless.
My solution to this is that I ring my bell when I'm far from people, usually twice while I'm still a fair way away. It just gets pedestrians conscious that there's a bike around, while also being far enough away that it's not going to surprise them and I don't think they assume it's an aggressive bell.
My least favourite is when a cyclist speeds past and shouts "on ya right" (I'm in Australia) but they shout it when they're so close that there's no chance of hearing and understanding in time.
That's how I do it too. I'll tap bell once (and let the ring sustain) when I'm about ~5 seconds from overtaking them so people know there's something coming up behind them, and the sustained sound tells them how fast it's coming. This is especially important with runners, who are prone to suddenly take a U-turn if they're at the end of their route.
Pedestrians regularly wave acknowledgement or even say "thank you." Some other cyclists (especially on e-bikes) just blast by with no warning.
The problem with bells is that they aren't very directional. It's hard for my brain to figure out from which direction the sound is coming from. Someone speaking "on your left" is much more directional, and it includes important context as to what the warning is about.
Its pretty safe to assume on a trail if you hear a bell that a bike is coming up behind you.
Or from the side or oncoming and he's just behind the crowd of pedestrians ahead of you.
Yes haha - a bike coming from _somewhere_
Agreed.
I saw one recently where the cyclist shouted out something like, "ON YOUR LEFT!" and all it did was startle the crap out of a jogger who spun around into the path of the bicycle. Luckily just a close call. That cyclist's "warnings", with no time for pedestrians to react properly, were really just a game of Russian roulette. (And really rude, as you say).
Shouting that while traveling too fast is indeed incorrect, but a polite "on your left" or bell while traveling an appropriate speed is considered good behavior to avoid surprising pedestrians.
The problem is there's a good number of people that hear "on your left" and shift left.
A gentle bell mostly doesn't do that.
Yeah, I prefer a bell.
also - even though the pedestrian has the obligation to move over - a friendly thanks! or thank you! helps all cyclists in the long-run.
This again depends on the jurisdiction and kind of path you're on. Where I grew up, if it's not separated into bicyclist & pedestrian lanes, bikes yield to pedestrians.
On US forest trails, the general rule is bikes yield to pedestrians and everyone yields to horses.
(Obviously pedestrians walking in bicycle lanes are doing it wrong.)
Yep, a wave helps as well.
Outside of some stage actors and drill sergeants, there are probably few people who can project their voices well enough that a vocal warning is useful.
You're either traveling slow enough that it's not necessary (and why yell at people if you have to?), or are too far away for someone to understand and get a bearing on who isn't already looking at you.
A bell is still rude in a shared space but used correctly, a decent one can at least be effective.
> A bell is still rude in a shared space
I just don't think that is even a little bit true, or at least it's something that is very culturally specific and thus not generally applicable.
I have a friendly sounding bell I use from an appropriate distance (and I can modulate the volume), and I routinely have people give a light wave to show they heard. In addition, the biggest complaint about cyclists in local social media is about them passing without notice.
If you just bell once or twice, and don't aggressively keep ringing, I'd never consider a bicycle bell in a shared space rude. I even consider it good manners, though as others have said, that varies between cultures.
Being visually impaired, though, I'm grateful for cyclists who use their bell. It's immediately clear. For some reason, my brain takes slightly longer to process someone yelling "on your left!" or similar, than just a quick "ring ring".
Cyclists will normally do the same thing passing out other cyclists at a 5-10 km/h speed difference, and it's definitely useful there.
Unfortunately in many jurisdictions it is legally required to do that when passing a pedestrian.
Can you list some examples? When I lived in Chicago it was quite common for cyclists to shout this on the long lakefront trail, I wonder if that's the case there too.
I've never ridden in Illinois, but yeah:
> § 11-1512. Bicycles on sidewalks. (a) A person propelling a bicycle upon and along a sidewalk, or across a roadway upon and along a crosswalk, shall yield the right of way to any pedestrian and shall give audible signal before overtaking and passing such pedestrian.
https://codes.findlaw.com/il/chapter-625-vehicles/il-st-sect...
No idea if the lakefront trail is classified as a sidewalk but there are at least some cases in Illinois where either a bell or a "on your left" are legally mandatory.
> A horn or bell is mostly for telling other people "hey I'm here, stay out of my way and dont suddenly cross into my path"
This. I only use the bell on bike paths, too. Sometimes it feels like a game of pac-man, where baddies will wander into my path from all directions and in all kinds of ways. Cars doing a right turn, zombies staring into phones, people walking backwards (!), zombies staring into phones walking backwards, it doesn't end.
The ultimate cyclist killer: those stupid extending dog leashes.
Back when I roller skated, the ultimate question: you see a person and a dog, several meters apart. Is there a leash between them? :-)
Oof. If yes, you might be about to get nailed. If no, will the dog run after me and bite me?
I’ve had a dog on my heels doing doing 40kmh.
They were at my heel, past the back of my rear tyre. I was briefly a competitive sprint cyclist.
FWIW, it's better to stop and talk to the dog. Dogs don't really want to bite you, most will just chase you and don't really even know why. If you stop and confront them, they are confused and don't know what to do next.
Get off the bike on the side opposite of the dog and keep the bike between you and the dog just in case, if you are afraid.
Nope, I was out of there. This one was a biter.
That is an issue on bike paths that are build inside a sidewalk, the cycling path is usually build using a smoother surface than the one designed for pedestrians. Plus it sometimes has a brighter paint.
I am pretty sure most people don't realize it but they are inconciously attracted to it. It just feels better walking on it.
That's an issue on any bike path in the US, even if it's a fire road in the middle of nowhere. I bet there are people walking their dogs or checking Instagram on the single track course that is used for the Red Bull Rampage.
Yeah, it happens on sidewalks, bike trails, mixed use trails, and dedicated bike lanes. If anything, dedicated bike lanes are the worst because they get errant pedestrians and cars.
No, every bike path in a city inevitably has crossings or is laid out next to a sidewalk. People just do their random-walk thing (Brownian motion, really, sometimes) and wander into the bike path.
Sometimes you clearly see more people on the bike paths than on the regular sidewalks. And I definitely attribute that to its smoother nature compared to the fake cobbles you have in many places, amplifyied if there is a baby stroller in the mix.
It's funny, because if that is true, it should give pause to city planners and officials: people prefer smooth sidewalks :-)
> Some cyclists ring their bells because they're worried a pedestrian might suddenly turn into their path,
This is wrong - on mixed use paths, it is customary and proper to announce "on your left" when passing, and a bell is a nice alternative. Even cycling slowly pedestrians can do some very erratic things, and moreover are very surprised when cyclists suddenly appear on their left (and may do something dumb in surprise!).
> This is wrong - on mixed use paths, it is customary and proper to announce "on your left" when passing
This is neither customarily nor regulatory uniform. There are mixed-use trails near me where bells are required. There are some trails where most people use a bell, some trails where nobody uses a bell, and some where there is a mix.
In my personal experience, the ratio of bikes to pedestrians and the purpose of the trail greatly affects how people tend to handle this.
On the bike trail it is crucial to do a shoulder check when changing lanes. Some people get "in the zone" and ignore all other traffic in the singular pursuit of the shortest times. They will get very very angry if you get in front of them, if they spot you at all instead of just slamming into your rear tire at full speed.
I personally can't stand to ride without a mirror for situational awareness (or, if on road, a mirror and also radar).
It's essential on narrow shared paths e.g. a canal towpath, when you're approaching a pedestrian from behind in order to avoid startling them when you pass.
Most people walking the canal towpath around here know this, runners in particular will sometimes be give a wave or visual acknowledgement they've heard you without turning around.
> If im cycling through a shared space, I find it extremely rude to ring the bell, because it feels like I'm telling people to get out of my way, but they have just as much right to a shared path as I do.
It’s certainly rude to ring the bell in a aggressive manner, but many bells are capable of producing much softer, more polite sounds.
In super busy old European capitals I find that people increasingly just ride around with speakers playing a constant tune at a reasonable volume, a massive improvement on dense streets full of varyingly sober people.
> In super busy old European capitals I find that people increasingly just ride around with speakers playing a constant tune at a reasonable volume, a massive improvement on dense streets full of varyingly sober people.
I sometimes do that. It helps not having music that could be described as aggressive. I often use reggae.
However it means you need a speaker charged so it is not something I have ready everytime I use my bicycle, nor do I want to carry it everyday when leaving the bike attached somewhere so it can't be the goto solution.
I still think that ringing bells at people is a little rude, regardless of the tone. Like imagine if you were at the grocery store, blocking the isle and someone lightly chimed a bell at you instead of just saying "excuse me".
IMO if I'm in a dense pedestrian zone and I can't go around people and I can't communicate by voice, it means I'm going too fast.
It's just cultural. If there's a cultural expectation of the ring/honk it's not rude. e.g. in India people will honk as a form of active group flock behaviour but foreigners will interpret it as everyone saying "get out of my way"; but in some European countries I have seen that people use the bell (much less noisy than the typical Indian street) and it's got the same meaning. In Hawaii, if you ever honk at someone, you're going to have a fight on your hands. In San Francisco, if you honk at someone and you're on Bush Street it means you're trying to help the traffic light change (it's a team effort) but anywhere else you get anything from a gun drawn, to a brake check, to a wave in apology for missing the light by being on the phone.
Overall, cultural expectations are everything here so it's best to just "when in Rome, do as Romans do".
Can you explain to me what it means to try to get the traffic light to change on Bush street? I tried searching for it but couldn't find anything.
It was a not-particularly-amusing joke that people honk because doing so helps the light change. It doesn’t, of course, but I used to work at a building at the intersection of Bush and Sansome (I think), the Standard Oil Building, and every day at 5 PM the honking would put Bombay to shame.
I don't agree with the former, a bell is not rude if you actuate it in advance from far enough. I do that if I see people about to cross my path but looking somewhere else or if there are kids wandering because I know that kids tend to be imprevisible, are often not very aware of their surrounding and have a smaller field of view. If you are just a handful of meters from them, it is just too late to ring a bell, you should have slowed down already anyway.
There is nothing to be done against old people using noise so I just prepare to stop.
Still agree on the second statement.
>> Like imagine if you were at the grocery store, blocking the isle and someone lightly chimed a bell at you
That sounds delightful. We should have more bells lightly chimed around us.
I agree with you, but I can report that in Germany people ring bells constantly and it is simply considered normal. Big cultural difference.
On shared use trails, I suspect your voice might give out (especially given the headphone status of most pedestrians) and a bicycle bell is less ambiguous than a voice, which could be a fast walker, a runner, or a bicyclist.
Here the pedestrian-bicycle problems are much more likely to occur on dedicated bike paths than in pedestrian zones (where bicyclists must ride at walking speed). Usually a pedestrian nonchalantly crossing the bike path at an angle without paying the slightest attention to what they're doing.
The same people tend to ignore the bell. They're in their own world. I usually shout at them to move in that case. A friend of mine instead bought a loud horn connected to a can of compressed gas, which commands attention much more easily than a puny little bell. Works on car drivers, too.
Pedestrians still exist in non dense zones. It seems there's no way to win. I've been told that I should use a bell because vocal addresses are too startling.
Now if there's not enough room to pass safely and silently I completely slow to the pedestrians speed and THEN calmly say excuse me. But I'm convinced that there is just no universally correct way to do it. If you pass people in any way whatsoever, sooner or later someone is going to get mad about it.
> Now if there's not enough room to pass safely and silently I completely slow to the pedestrians speed and THEN calmly say excuse me. But I'm convinced that there is just no universally correct way to do it.
Anyone who is mad that you politely passed them at a safe speed is just too sensitive about these things. You're totally fine there. But "room to pass safely and silently" could still piss people off depending on your speed and distance.
The conclusion I came to is that being totally fine there is independent from whether people could get pissed off about a thing. I try operate in a safe and reasonable manner. I'm sure some people are pissed, as some people will always be.
A noisy free hub is my solution.
Back peddling or coasting gets people’s attention. Though moving slowly uphill and needing to back peddle is a bit of a test.
> imagine if you were at the grocery store, blocking the isle and someone lightly chimed a bell at you instead of just saying "excuse me"
Greetings from Sweden, where some people will verbally announce "honk honk" (tuut tuut) while avoiding eye contact – then bump into your leg with their grocery cart.
If you're in a grocery store and aren't maintaining enough situational awareness to preemptively move out of somebody's way, I file that as rude. I'm sure the ingredients on that box of slop are very engaging, but you should still be able to see and hear a shopping car rolling up on you.
>blocking the isle and someone lightly chimed a bell at you instead of just saying "excuse me".
Well, at least here in Europe I’d have to spend a decent amount of time deciding which language to use.
I'm also in Europe, and I always just either say the equivalent in the local language, or just use english. Even in the smallest most remote villages, you'd be pretty hard pressed to find someone who doesn't know the word "sorry".
I’ve found that speaking the wrong language often results in people freezing up as they process what I just said to them, that’s often counterproductive.
I just shout "dreen dreen".. which more or less is the sound a bike bell makes, works anywhere
Thank you, I'm a cyclist too and I always try to respect pedestrians' space, and it really pisses me off when people don't. In many cities cycling on pavement is not allowed, yet some cyclists do it... which I'd be fine with, provided they understand that they're doing something they're not supposed to be doing and that they have no priority. But when they're invading pedestrian space like that AND ring the bell as if people were supposed to be making way for them, I literally want to throw a stick in their wheels.
> But when they're invading pedestrian space like that AND ring the bell as if people were supposed to be making way for them
Honestly, I prefer that over those damn electric scooters. Most people who ride them are complete morons. They don't pay attention, ride into traffic, go at high speeds and don't care about anyone except themselves. I’ve even been hit by one.
YES! I get the point of mobility and all that but I wish someone would give a ticket to some of those a-holes. Honestly, town halls have been looking the other way for far too long on this matter.
> With cars, I will sometimes proactively ring my bell at them if I think they're not sufficiently aware enough of me though.
There's only a few types of car that will be "aware" of cyclists and I don't think ringing a bell will help their algorithms. Getting the attention of a driver, meanwhile, is difficult with a bell as often they'll be in a semi-soundproof cage with loud music on. (Also deaf drivers are a thing).
I've never really considered using a bell for motorised traffic. I did once buy a loud air-horn, but it was so loud and abrasive that I never used it as it seemed really rude.
> I've never really considered using a bell for motorised traffic.
It works surprisingly well if the car isn't moving quickly. Cars aren't as sound isolating as you'd think. My main use-case is that a car is stopped at an intersection, or crossing my lane so they can turn, and I'm worried they'll pull out and hit me because they're looking the wrong way focused on car traffic, and in these situations they almost always hear my bell.
I think bells do have a communication use of course, just not really to be used as an emergency 'an accident is about to happen, immediately take action'.
At least a bell sounds relatively polite if you're not spamming it. A horn is a bit aggressive, you have to modulate it.
In a car I use two short tapped toots as a polite kind of 'excuse me' e.g. if someone hasn't noticed a light turning green. That seems more friendly than a sustained blast.
On the bike with a bell I'll just say thank you as I pass, if they've moved for me. Usually seems to go down well enough.
it's a good habit to just ring your bell when approaching things like merges and city intersections regardless if there's other people; you tend to do it earlier and might miss seeing someone.
> I find it extremely rude to ring the bell, because it feels like I'm telling people to get out of my way,
I got yelled at very rudely the other day for overtaking a pedestrian without ringing my bell. I thought I had plenty of space, rode at an appropriate speed and didn't want to be rude, like you said, but I guess you can never please everyone.
It sounds silly, but apart from liking the sound, this is why I really like wheels with loud hubs.
I have a pair of Hunt wheels and they work fantastically, bonus points because they are “always on”, pedestrians are aware of them, but are never surprised.
I hate loud hubs. So disturbing. Also comes across as passive aggressive.
See how your comment has inbuilt sass? It doesn’t matter what you consider plenty of space and an appropriate speed- if you startle me, I’m going to yell at you for not ringing a bell to let me know you were there.
Note that the worst kind of canal towpath cyclist is the one who slows to a crawl and creeps behind me for minutes sometimes unnoticed, biding their time for a passing spot with lots of space. Just ring the frigging bell and I will stand out of your way for the 3 seconds it takes you to get by!
Its a shared path yes but by two sets of people going at two very different speeds, so I don't feel particularly guilty about the bell, though I do try to avoid it if possible.
Bicycle bells are mostly for warning pedestrians when approaching from behind and passing on shared-use trails. I ride on shared infrastructure and cannot afford to build new infrastructure when my town will not. Not warning a pedestrian when approaching from behind introduces the possibility of collision if the pedestrian makes a sudden change in his walking course. I typically use this etiquette:
Passing a single pedestrian or runner on a quiet day: no bell, coasting for a short bit with a loud free hub (the rotating ratchet element on the rear wheel) alerts the pedestrian to my presence.
Passing a runner: normal ring from a distance so they have knowledge that the bicycle is passing
Passing a cyclist: one loud ring from a distance
Passing a pedestrian walking a dog: two loud rings, one far, one close, so that the pedestrian is aware of the approaching bicycle and he can prevent his dog from running at me/colliding. Many dogs do seem to enjoy a bicycle chase.
Antisocial pedestrians (i.e., walking side-by-side such as to be blocking the path in both directions, preventing the bicyclist from passing): several loud rings of the bell until the antisocial activity has abated. Announcements in my local tongue (not English) that they impede the flow of traffic.
I wonder if you are German?
Spending some time in Germany from Holland I notice there is a significant difference in cycling etiquette :)
Especially regarding “passing a cyclist” which also touches on the essential difficulty with having only one “ring” sound.
Always when Germans pass me on the bike and they ring I get slightly annoyed because I interpret it as a “get out of the way” ring, and I feel like there is enough space. But perhaps it’s just the cautious “don’t do anything unexpected” ring.
A Dutch person would rarely ring at another cyclist in the former way. But they also might be less safety focused while cycling (see also: helmet usage). Or we have safer infrastructure already.
On a road bike, however, I too ring at pedestrians “preemptively”. For sure GPs remark of “if you need to ring you’re going too fast” applies here but that’s the essence of road cycling.
Ironically I’m also annoyed when road cyclists ring at me for the same reason.
Just shows the case for having 2 clearly different types of rings.
(Also for cars to have a “thank you” horn, haha)
As a Dutch person, I experience exactly this dilemma: ringing the bell feels like telling people to get out of the way, when often there is plenty of space for me to pass through, but I know that there's a significant chance that they're going to veer into my way if they don't know I'm coming.
Of course, ringing my bell will often cause people to veer into the way, too. But then if you ring at a sufficient distance, you risk them not hearing it. Except there's no way to tell if they're not hearing it, or just consciously not veering into the way, and in the latter case, you don't want to ring again, because that will sound even more impatient.
Etiquette is hard.
(And yes, I want cars to have a bicycle bell too, so they can greet people without jump-scaring me.)
I used to slightly pull & quickly release a brake lever that made a less-annoying and less-loud "clack" noise when I wanted to be noticed but not to be annoying, generally when I knew I had no right of way but wanted to politely ask for a way around a group of people who hadn't noticed me yet.
Living now in Germany :)
I ring a very nice bell and can "mute" the bell (touching it with my hand to stop the ring just after thumbing the striker), so when ringing for information rather than hazard, it's a short quick ring, rather than a long loud ring.
Signs here alert cyclists to warn when passing, so certainly this etiquette is considered normal, but also I imagine it is not universal to all regions.
This is exactly the same thing with the car horn: in some countries it seems to be used for "hey you, unprotected person, do NOT swerve right now, I am passing you with my car" versus in Sweden where I live, your'e not allowed that usage at all.
Also in Sweden, you do only use the bell if really needed.
as someone who moved to Netherlands couple of years ago, I started to be much more annoyed by cyclist in other countries. In Netherlands if I hear ring I know I'm doing something wrong and I need to stop and pay asses whatever I'm doing right now.
In other countries rings now seem either unnecessary (they have enough space) or rude (I'm not on bike lane, why do you demand me to give you a way).
cars are typically the biggest problems and it's usually their behaviour, but I always give a friendly wave when a car yields (or even just doesn't run me over).
One small victory at a a time...
What they described is also good etiquette in the Midwestern US.
Right it has a wider non-emergency comms purpose, I do this too. But I wouldn't do it and assume they've heard or understood, and so overtake too fast on that assumption. The overtake should be safe regardless.
I hate to tell you, but you are doing it wrong
If infrastructure is shared it doesn't mean you have more rights to pass than pedestrian.
Moreover, bell as a way to warn doesn't work. Because pedestrians will mostly get startled because of it and can actually do this sudden move you are trying to make them not do.
So if you are on fast vehicle comparing to others in the same infrastructure, you need to drive in a way, that you can't be affected of sudden turn of someone in front of you. Which basically means you need to slow down or give enough space for others to do their sudden moves.
When cycling on shared use infrastructure I generally find pedestrians understand the meaning of a bell as a warning. Certainly some do become startled and move unpredictably, but if you travel at a low enough speed and bell with enough distance that this isn't an issue.
I regularly cycle on a very narrow shared use pavement which is directly beside a 40mph road. There is space to pass pedestrians, but I would consider it dangerous to try and pass without ensuring they are aware of my presence, even when passing at a walking pace.
A chime of the bell is more of a polite "I'm here" instead of a "Get out of my way!"
Where I live, there are different levels of "shared" and I would be very confused if a cyclist would just stay behind me instead of ringing the bell. It's different cultures.
shared infrastructure means exactly that.
If they're blocking a bike, they're also blocking other pedestrians. It's rude no matter what.
> Do horns and bells really prevent accidents?
They absolutely do, for indirect reasons:
> Generally it's a lot easier just to press the brake
Maybe easier, but it hardly seems fair, nor realistic.
With a bit of experience, you can tell when pedestrians are likely to stumble onto the bike lane without looking. Then you have two choices: Significantly reduce your speed, or ring your bell first and only reduce speed if they still haven't noticed the oncoming bike.
If you only reduce speed, you'll be traveling at a very low average speed, and time is money (especially for bike delivery workers, but I also hate having to sharply decelerate for people glued to their screen or otherwise completely unaware of their surroundings even if I'm not in a rush), so you can take a guess as to whether "just reducing your speed" is practicable.
> If you only reduce speed, you'll be traveling at a very low average speed, and time is money
Well this is a bit of an appeal to consequences. I would say (a) this is a very good reason to build dedicated infra, and (b) if something ever does happen, a court is really not going to take this line of reasoning very well, so be careful with it... even if in practice it's how you consider it.
I'm completely in favor of building dedicated infrastructure, but I can't do that by myself. (Also, how do you prevent pedestrians from crossing said dedicated infrastructure without looking? Should it be fenced off? But I agree that there are better and worse implementations of dedicated bike lanes.)
What would you suggest cyclists do until that happens? Never go faster than walking speed? Then I can leave my bike at home. Cycle on the road, where cars can hit me, instead of the dedicated bike lane, use of which is often mandatory?
> a court is really not going to take this line of reasoning very well
A court will rule in favor of the pedestrian stepping onto a bike lane without looking getting hit by a bike that's too close to do anything?
> What would you suggest cyclists do until that happens? Never go faster than walking speed? Then I can leave my bike at home. Cycle on the road, where cars can hit me, instead of the dedicated bike lane, use of which is often mandatory?
I don't know where you live but it's quite unusual here to be cycling through areas that have a lot of pedestrians. If the bike lane is a dedicated one, pedestrians are very rarely in it. But yes if all else fails, the road is preferable to the pavement if you're unwilling to cycle slowly enough.
> how do you prevent pedestrians from crossing said dedicated infrastructure without looking?
That's a UX problem. You can also ask how to prevent cars driving on the cycle lane. Which we do in a multitude of ways. You just need to physically communicate segregation and danger.
> A court will rule in favor of the pedestrian stepping onto a bike lane without looking getting hit by a bike that's too close to do anything?
Here, absolutely, if they consider the cyclist is going too fast for the conditions. There's a concept of a hierarchy whereby the more vulnerable class is almost assumed not to be at fault. Same for a car hitting a cyclist, or a motorbike, even.
> If the bike lane is a dedicated one, pedestrians are very rarely in it.
Pedestrians step onto the dedicated bike lane I use to commute on average at least once per way for me.
> But yes if all else fails, the road is preferable to the pavement if you're unwilling to cycle slowly enough.
Of course I'm taking the road if there's no dedicated bike lane. Cycling faster than walking speed on the sidewalk seems reckless to me.
> That's a UX problem. You can also ask how to prevent cars driving on the cycle lane. Which we do in a multitude of ways. You just need to physically communicate segregation.
Yes, but I can only use the bike lane that already exists. Of course I prefer the ones with better UX.
> There's a concept of a hierarchy whereby the more vulnerable class is almost assumed not to be at fault.
Not where I live. You are allowed to e.g. trust adult pedestrians without any visible signs of impairment to not randomly step into the road. Otherwise, driving cars next to sidewalks or crossing intersections would only be possible at walking speed as well.
Of course, if you already see somebody approaching the road, somebody walking unsteadily, visibly intoxicated etc. you are obliged to still brake preemptively. The question here is whether visible noise-cancelling headphones would be considered a similar visible impairment, I suppose.
Personally, I just always assume I haven't been noticed, because ultimately I don't want to run somebody over even if I would be legally in the clear. That's a different story, though.
Our bike lanes are just a line on the sidewalk and pedestrians routinely walk on them, cross the sidewalk in them without looking, let their toddlers/pets run into them, etc. Also, nobody realizes that a bicycle bell means "someone is coming", so they just ignore it as background noise.
I had to mount an airhorn onto my bike. At least people listen to that, though it's so loud I only use it in emergencies.
I would be worried about a horn like this because if they get startled and move into the path of a car on the actual road, or do any other stupid thing that injures them, you're going to have real problems.
Luckily the actual road is many tens of meters away from the bike path, but you're right otherwise.
I get your point about not wanting to reduce speed, but it's worth considering how the law might react in a worse-case scenario.
Here in the UK, there was an infamous case of Charlie Alliston who ended up getting a ridiculous 18 months prison sentence after colliding with a pedestrian who hit her head and subsequently died. He was riding a "fixie" without a front brake and was cycling at around 18mph through some green traffic lights. The pedestrian was crossing the road further on (i.e. not at a junction which is fairly normal) and wasn't paying enough attention, so Charlie shouted at her to get out of his way. He started to reduce speed (rear brake only), but then decided that he could just aim for the gap behind her, but she then reacted to his shouting by stepping backwards into his path.
The point is that the judge awarded such a tough sentence partly due to Charlie not taking all available actions to avoid a collision and also because his bike was illegal to use on the road due to having just one brake. So, if you rely on a bell to clear your path, you could be held liable if they don't respond and you collide.
To be clear, I am still reducing my speed if I don't get positive confirmation that I've been noticed or if there's not enough time for a reaction to even happen.
My bell just gives me the significant improvement of possibly getting a reaction from the pedestrian long before I need to start braking.
However, not everybody does cycle like that. And while legally and ethically dubious, the bell still helps in that case as well.
I don't know, the sentence doesn't sound ridiculous if you're cycliing at 18mph towards someone, without a front brake, and your precaution is "it's OK, I can guess which way they're going to go".
The sentence was very harsh compared to lots of drivers who have killed people in far worse ways. I don't want to excuse him as he was also a complete arsehole on social media after the collision and his cycling was reckless. The lesson is that even if you think you have priority, you have to do all that you can to avoid hitting someone.
Hm yeah, I don't know about drivers' sentences, true.
I've been a cyclist in SF and in Amsterdam, both for many years.
In SF I used my bell much more aggressively. It was mainly for cars, if I'm in or entering their blind spot and my spidey sense tells me they are considering an action that places me in danger. For example, we all know when driving when the car in front of us is thinking about merging, even before they indicate (often I feel like I know before they do). I also used it for pedestrians stepping out into the street who are maybe looking past me for oncoming cars but somehow don't see me, or when approaching 'blind' situations like a sharp corner, a driver pulling out of a driveway but there is a tree between us, delivery drivers stepping out from their truck, etc. I can't say how many accidents have been prevented (the person may have eventually looked and seen me), but I can say that my bell has triggered people to look and see me earlier than they were going to had I not rang it.
In Amsterdam my bell is used much more sparingly. It's mostly for tourists stepping into (or considering stepping into) the bike lane. If they are already in the bike lane, I almost always prefer just to slow down a bit and dodge them, as ringing the bell often triggers a deer-caught-in-headlight moment or erratic behavior, which increases the chance of an accident or that I have to come to a full stop. The other situation is to express dissatisfaction at cars blocking bike lanes, cars/bikes not yielding, drivers blocking intersections, or other dangerous behavior. This isn't preventing an accident but I'd argue it is still important, as social control affects how often we make bad decisions. Outside the city I also use my bell to let other cyclists know I'm passing.
So yeah, I'd say bells prevent accidents, but obviously not as well as good biking infrastructure, where pedestrians, bikes, and cars have clear separate spaces, and visibility of cyclists to drivers is high.
It's not only about preventing accidents (but I do believe it prevents some to attempt answering your question).
It's also about signaling to someone that they might be doing something wrong or they might not be paying attention. For pedestrians it takes significantly less time and distance to stop, for cars, trams, and bicycles, it takes longer.
It happens all the time that pedestrians don't know the customs of a country, they don't recognize bike lines... in that case the cyclists do not need to pump the breaks anytime a clueless tourist gets in front of them... they can ring the bell, signaling:
"yo, it's not how we do it here, please watch out, I'm coming full speed and you are in the wrong, so please look up from your phone and stop right there".
I also had the luck to meet some people thinking they can be on their phone while cycling, drifting into my lane, etc... In that case, a bell is also adequate
"hey, please stop writing a text message while you are on your bike blazing through the city, you are driving as if you were drunk, pay attention please and stop multitasking (you moron)"
If nothing works to change their behavior, of course I'll try my best and hit the brakes safely, but I'd prefer they learned how to move around in the city safely.
My experiences on a motorcycle tell me that if you feel the need to honk you should be focusing on braking and evasive maneuvers instead.
The choice between between teaching some midwit the law and going home in one piece seems crystal clear to me.
In a couple of years of riding I think the horn would have very slightly helped maybe... once or twice. If the other guy would have heard it at all which is doubtful.
As someone who cycles daily, the bell is less aggressive than a car horn and it's a useful signaling tool about every other day. I need to signal that I'm approaching from behind pedestrians, especially if they are walking without any safe gaps for me to pass them through.
Phones? I've seen cyclists using laptops. Some of the most oblivious and entitled vehicle operators on the road.
> I've seen cyclists using laptops.
How? That seems like it would be rather mechanically challenging.
Sort of perched on the handlebars. It did seem almost impossible. Maybe there is a bracket of some sort being used.
Aw, I was hoping for some modded recumbent bicycle that has a whole desk on it.
A car company wanting to divert attention away from the carnage cars cause. Seems a bit suspicious no?
In the UK, an important market for VW group, there are two types of bicycle, one for the proletariat and the other for the bourgeoisie. Due to the k-shaped economy, the proletariat bicycle died a long time ago, to evolve into the 'Lime bike' in places such as London. In the past, companies such as Raleigh provided excellent proletariat bicycles, and the working man could afford them for his kids and himself. Of course, he would prefer a car, because cars are high status whereas a steel/aluminium bicycle with straight bars is not.
The bourgeoisie bicycle is a relatively recent phenomenon, and anything totally impractical and made of carbon fibre qualifies as bourgeoisie. The bourgeoisie bicycle is also too expensive to lock up in town, plus you need all the clobber to go with it (lycra).
Every bourgeoisie bicycle is owned by a car dependent person. They don't begin their ride at their front door, and their journeys are not useful or with purpose beyond cycling. Their bicycles get strapped onto the back of their car, or placed in the trunk, with wheels removed. These people don't need locks for their bicycles as they have a two tonne steel box to secure their bicycle in. You also get things like power-meters with these bikes, plus the owner has to wear a special polystyrene hat, at the insistence of their mother.
Skoda are selling to those people that spend £5K+ on their toy carbon fibre bicycle. They know the realities of car dependency.
Why would somebody transport a bike on car to London and ride on the streets crowded with pedestrians? And attach a massive bell to a carbon bike to facilitate that? The video shows that they have given these to delivery riders, which seems to be the target audience for a device like that. Seeing that this story is going viral everywhere it appears to be a quite a successful PR campaign. I doubt it's a real product though now I imagine similar devices will appear on Alibaba and Amazon.
In Skoda's defense, it has a long tradition of making bicycles as well
Skoda is a huge sponsor of professionel cycling.
"Do horns and bells really prevent accidents?"
If you are a sane person, absolutely not!! You _try_ the bell, if people react, then you go. Many times it just confuses people or people ignore it.
If you are a high-speed maniac and _rely_ on the bell to clear a path for you... then yeah. But you are then also likely to take great risks in general and will probably be in other accidents...
> In order for e.g. a horn to work you need enough time that the driver processes the situation and decides the horn will communicate something AND enough time for the pedestrian or whatever to process that and react to it. Generally it's a lot easier just to press the brake, and more importantly be travelling at a speed and in a manner where the brake is sufficient
I have seen a small kid jump from his father's scooter just when I was overtaking them and they decided to stop because he had seen his grandpa or whoever was that old guy on the other side of the bike lane. His father managed to stop him by grabbing his sweater because I had rung my bell a few seconds before he decided to stop but the kid ended up inches from my bicycle. It was at very low speed, almost walking speed yet hitting a bicycle handlebars head first because you turn around without looking still hurts even if the bicycle his stopped.
If I'm driving and I see a young kid like this I always move out away from the curb if possible. So even if they dart out or fall into the road it's not a problem. Actually, same if I'm passing a bunch of parked cars and there is room, since kids can be stupid and emerge from between them.
If someone truly runs into when you're stationary, I'm not sure anyone really has a problem with you in that scenario.
I don't want people to get hurts, regardless if it is my fault or not. Our world/societes could do with more empathy even if some people do errors.
For the same reason I try to be courteous and try to always say "hello, thank you, have a nice day" even if sometimes I am fuming inside that someone cut my path and I had priority from a legal point of view. I also quietly slow down and give ample distance to someone who cross the street when I am driving even when it is a stupid decision from their part and others would have honked or shouted insults.
I don't think our life and interactions should always be a case of us vs them.
There are a lot of runners on mixed use paths wearing headphones these days. They are an absolute danger to overtaking bikes. A bell they would hear would be useful.
To me, in a path with no priority to the bike, the only danger are cyclist who think they have priority and can overtake people at speed.
Being able to get the attention of runners improves the situation, reducing the speed while circulating on a mixed path solves it completely. If you wanna go fast get on a bike lane or the road.
I don't quite follow, how slowing makes the problem of a runner jumping into the side of your bike go away? If anything it makes it more likely he or she will knock you off the bike since a slower moving bike is less stable and also increases the time you are in the danger zone next to a runner. And runners do jump between the lanes for no apparent reason.
I suppose you feel similarly about the dangers bikes pose to cars?
Running with ANC headphones on is like driving with your eyes closed. Safety is a two-way street and it's everyone's responsibility to maintain a basic level of situational awareness.
Deaf people exist.
Pedestrians are not danger, they are victims! Cyclist should slow down, while performing dangerous overtaking, and not crash into them! Same rules like with cars!
In cars a horn has saved me a few times where someone was backing up or turning into me not realising I was there. In those situations my car was stationary so there was nothing else I could do as quickly as pressing the horn
horns & bells are for pedestrians IME, not cars.
>> properly segregated infrastructure for each class of vehicle.
I ride a lot in traffic and the problem with segregated infrastructure (i.e. bike lanes) is the interfaces and constriction. Pedestrians step off the sidewalk or out of cars into constrained bike lanes all the time and there's no where to go; cars turn across bike lanes with the same problem.
You can't always do it, but if you can eliminate the speed differential I believe riding in traffic is much safer than a bike lane, at least until you get enough bike volume to keep drivers aware. THat's hard to do in most of NA or year round.
They certainly can, yes. Many crashes can be avoided if both parties slam on the brakes or swerve, not not quite if only one does. Also they're useful in parking lots when some dumbass is about to back right into you.
You're right, it's certainly not the primary way to prevent accidents. But it helps at the edges, which seems worthwhile.
That's assuming the bells aren't abused too badly, which is a mixed bag, but mostly true.
I concur. Even the best bell in the world may be utterly useless if the pedestrian happens to be deaf. Also, bicycle bells tend to polarise pedestrians - some people think that bells are rude and insisting that peds get out of the way and other people think it's dangerous and rude to not use a bell every time you overtake.
My solution is to still have a tiny bell on my road bike, but instead of using it, call out something like "can I get past, please?" or if an immediate response is required (e.g. ped blindly stepping into the road ahead of me) then yelling "Oi!" can really surprise them and make them notice you. I'm also a fan of using "Beep, beep" if a ped is on cycle infrastructure (active travel infrastructure is probably a better term) and I want to pretend that I'm an impatient driver.
I think the human voice is far superior to a bell as you can tailor the message for the situation and you don't have to move a hand away from the brakes to do so. (Using your voice is also a very good idea when approaching a horse and rider - horses know about humans and don't get freaked out if you call ahead "Morning!" or something cheery and appropriate).
On my bike commute route, I'd lose my voice before the first meeting of the day if I had to use only my voice.
I realised after a few near misses that my voice is by far the lowest latency signal method I have. If a situation suddenly seems dangerous I'll yell. Perhaps not very polite, but far more polite than hitting someone who stepped out in front of me. A bike bell probably adds a second of latency to find the bell. I'd rather use that time to brake.
The bell can be useful as a more general "I'm here" warning. But if there's any actual risk of a collision, yelling and braking are far more effective.
Bells don’t work on cars, I’ve been using this in SF and motorists respond very quickly
https://loudbicycle.com/
[dead]
In the scenario presented (London, mostly not segregated bike paths), the solution is for the cyclist to ride in a way they're not endangering pedestrians.
There's even a fairly recent UK law (https://www.gov.uk/government/news/the-highway-code-8-change...) that more or less says in a collision, the "stronger" road user is at fault unless proven otherwise. That applies to car v. cyclist as much as cyclist v. pedestrian.
Political cyclists hate this because they think anybody who complains is just a car driver concern trolling, but having been hit by a cyclist I can attest to it being a real problem. Sure I wasn't in real risk of dying, but I was bruised and scraped up for a week after that. I've done my fair share of road cycling in my years, I don't do it now but I still cycle on trails. The way some cyclists push back on any criticism at all is very ideological, and a real problem for not just pedestrians (and drivers) but cyclists too, because the outspoken attitudes and public stunts of political cyclists breed a lot of contempt for cyclists broadly speaking, to the point where normies groan when I say I spent my weekend going on a trip with my bike, and still act weird when I explain I was on a rail-to-trail not clogging up a highway.
It's one thing when you're a fit adult male and get hit by an idiot cycling recklessly on the pavement, it's another if you're a small child or frail through sickness or old age. I've seen a couple of very near misses that would have ended very badly for the pedestrian through no fault of their own.
Saying this it's mostly teenagers in the idiot role from what I've seen and they are reckless by default.
I've been nearly hit by a bicycle-messenger looking dude in San Francisco when I was crossing the street with a "walk" sign at a crosswalk and he blew through the red light at probably about 15mph, and I have plenty of other experiences like that.
If you are running a red light at 15mph on a bicycle, dodging pedestrians, you are just an asshole - maybe you're slightly less dangerous than an SUV running a red light, but it is still completely not okay.
There are dumb teenagers, which is one thing, but the aggressive "well, we're not emitting carbon, so we can do whatever we want crowd" is probably even more crappy and dangerous, since they're deliberate about it, and more present in areas with lots of pedestrians.
Although the truly reckless ones are now on their ~50mph tuned illegal scooters with a "yolo" cheap lithium battery.
Those things are terrifying. Someone's little scooter's wheel base is definitely not stable enough for that sort of speed.
And that's before the battery fires.
Did you consider that your talking about GROUPS of people where _some_ individuals from ALL groups regularly behave poorly and deserve criticism and action?
Or is that too much of a nuance against tribal thinking?
Why do you think I'm not aware of this? Did I not just explain how different people who do the activity have different perspectives, priorities and proclivities? Did I not just explain how I disagree with the way some cyclists conduct themselves, while plainly being aware that not all cyclists are like this?
Maybe none of this way apparent to you, despite it being plainly written out in simple English, because... I don't know actually. Can you explain your failure to read?
And yet you immediately started with an anti-cyclist whine while ignoring pretty much everyone else.
These debates are so stupidly tiresome.
You have brain worms, I started by explaining that I am a cyclist. Obviously not all cyclists are particular ones I disagree with.
Parasites are more common than anyone’s comfortable with.
> not clogging up a highway.
Two of the three clips clearly show a bike-lane blocked by pedestrians. The third looks like a shared space - but blocked in a way where it seems reasonable to ask for space by ringing the bell?
Writing as a regular cyclist, the other side is seemingly always the problem.
Cars, cyclists, pedestrians, each of them thinks they are right and other side is wrong.
That seems to be exactly the case. As a pedestrian, my problem is the cyclists who think the sidewalk is for going faster than the speed limit and the bike lane is for pedestrians to dodge into. As a driver, it's cyclists who think "you can treat stop signs as yields if there's no traffic" means "stop signs are go signs, yield signs are go faster signs, there's no such thing as a red light". I'm sure if I biked, I'd be complaining about cars not seeing me and pedestrians being unpredictable and hogging the sidewalk. I'm sure if I was a train driver, I'd rant about cars blocking the tracks!
> yield signs are go faster signs
Reminds me of a good line from Starman…
Years ago, SF pedestrians took care of this problem by punching bicyclists until they stopped riding their bicycles on the sidewalk.
> the "stronger" road user is at fault unless proven otherwise
In general I agree with this, but a lot a lot depends on how "unless proven otherwise" is interpreted.
If a driver is typically at fault when a pedestrian or cyclist unexpectedly moves into their path then it seems like that practically restricts cars to speeds close to biking or walking in many cities.
Similarly, if a cyclist is typically at fault when a pedestrian unexpectedly moves into their path then it seems like that restricts bikes to speeds close to walking in many cities.
This effectively pedestrianizes car lanes and bike lanes which would be lovely in some areas, but it also restricts travel to walking speeds which also has downsides if enforced across an entire city.
Edit: after reading the post at https://www.gov.uk/government/news/the-highway-code-8-change... the guidance seems to strike a reasonable balance:
> People cycling, riding a horse or driving a horse-drawn vehicle should respect the safety of people walking in these spaces, but people walking should also take care not to obstruct or endanger them.
Seems to be some misunderstanding of what bike bells are for here...
A bell is helpful in a situation where a pedestrian is not aware of an approaching bike. The bell informs the pedestrian of two things:
1. That there is an approaching bike.
2. Roughly were the bike is approaching from.
The hope is that the pedestrian will then behave in a predictable way to allow a safe pass by the bike. In almost all cases the pedestrian will be able to simply continue doing what they were doing before they heard the bell.
If a pedestrian can not hear bike bells, for whatever reason, that is not a problem. They can just stay consistent with the centreline of the path/road/way. They then have a responsibility to shoulder check when shifting from side to side.
Not sure I understand your criticism.
Yes, bike bells are for pedestrians to hear.
Problem: Pedestrians today wear ANC noise cancelling, thus being unable to hear approaching bikes' bells.
Skoda: We made a bell with a frequency usually not cancelled by ANC, so these pedestrians still hear it.
Sounds reasonable to me.
I think it's time for some sort of a safety standard for a sound frequency to be reserved exclusively for alarm/alert use and that ANC systems have to let through.
It goes without saying, use of said frequency should be prohibited for other purposes, especially marketing.
I think this is a really bad idea unless paired with some regime that penalizes inappropiate use of alarms - and most societies don't treat noise pollution as a real problem. For example, people honk all the time even when there are no safety issues. Or have misconfigured home/car alarms. Outlawing using ANC for blocking "fake alarms" only makes the problem worse.
No honk in Switzerland, some honk in Romania, all honk in India. There's no one rule to rule them all.
I've recently visited the southern US (Texas, Louisiana and such) and I was very surprised about the lack of honking. When I returned to Europe I've felt like in India.
I myself pretty much never honk. I understand honking makes sense on narrow bendy roads like in the mountains, where you need to alert the drivers behind the corner, but I don't see any other legitimate reasons to be honest.
> some regime that penalizes inappropiate use of alarms
Legally, use of horns in traffic is restricted, and abuse can be punished. Doesn’t keep people from honking all the time.
It’s thoroughly unenforced, which is the problem.
Tho I like the proposal to require that manufacturers design car horns to sound as loudly inside the cabin as outside. Might make a dent.
as soon they do that all kind of companies will start abusing it, for example the sound of all smart phone notification will use exactly that frequency
I don't know… If I'm sitting at home or at a cafe working, I want my headphones to block all bicycle bells and ambulances on the street. Those in traffic could perhaps just turn their ANC off?
... and fire alarms? carbon monoxide detectors?
Won't those cut right through the ANC just by volume alone? A domestic fire alarm is 85–120 dB, I don't think my airpods can mute that.
And of course there will always be fringe cases. What if I go to sleep with regular foam earplugs, what if I take a sleeping pill etc. Or what if the warning sound can't be engineered to fit a ANC friendly frequency, like somebody screaming, a car tire screech behind me and so on.
There is no ANC that can block those, both because of volume and also because ANC only blocks constant noises like hums. It's terrible and sudden noises like alarms and honking.
However, deaf people are allowed to drive, cycle, walk etc. so sound won't always work anyway.
I suspect deaf people are more aware of their lack of hearing than headphone wearers.
Regular alarm sounds already do that, because above 1kHz or so it's the cushioning in the device that does the majority of the cancelling. There's a dip in effectiveness before that because to cancel noise effectively it's best to have a latency lower than a quarter of the wave's period.
Also ANC works best on wide-spectrum sounds, so any kind of siren or the cries of a child will go through, as the spectrum is a series of narrow peaks.
We can't even prevent radio advertisers from playing sirens.
With all the road noise and now noise makers required even for silent EVs, noise cancelling headphones are the last resort for people to get some relief from the constant noise pollution in cities.
And now you want to take that away too? No thanks. I get safety is important, but so is relief from noise pollution. Noise pollution is very damaging to your health. There needs to be a balance, and currently the safety police are weighing the scales inappropriately low.
The real safety move is to not put yourself in situations where you're going to collide with the least dangerous class of commuters.
In theory that sounds nice, but I suspect it would be much harder to make work in practice than it seems
Ha, I had the same idea before I realized it’ll just be used for ads. It would be cool for pilots’ announcements on a flight, or approaching stations on the train etc. But CVS will use it to tell you to download their app and enroll in ExtraCare Rewards. Or “Did you know you may be due for more than fourteen vaccines all at no cost to you?”
this sounds like an amazing idea, the govt should introduce laws so that the companies do this
Is there an interpretation of the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act where using this bicycle bell to circumvent the computer system used in your headphones for active noise cancellation would be a federal felony in the United States?
probably. i am pretty sure you can spin up a CFAA violation with some string and 2 cups.
Be careful with that because then bikers are just going to start using car horns.
Now that is an interesting question
hey, if they can prosecute for whistling into a handset...
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 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.
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.
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
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.
> 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.
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.
> 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.
No, they simply have different ethical frameworks/moral philosophies (consequentialist vs deontologist).
I’d mostly agree with you in that I find it unethical to not promote bike helmets at all, even if this were to somehow increase aggregate safety, especially if that increase is delayed and hard to measure.
But I do see the point against making them mandatory if that makes people take their car instead of a bike.
It’s not like not wearing a bike helmet is a dangerous, addictive substance that people are somehow defenselessly exposed to and that they need protection from, and it’s ultimately their own decision if they value their hairdo more than their brain.
> Not mandatory and at your own risk IMO
In the basis we seem to agree. Note that I am not trying to discourage helmet wearing (nor for governments to do it), just arguing against making it mandatory or even officially advised (for healthy adults) to wear them. Actual cycling safety is in numbers, more than in individually taken measures. This is all discussed in way more depth on reddit btw [0].
> but as a simple thought exercise on your argument
I realize could have written the sentence you respond to better, I should have written "and [mandatory helmet wearing] reduces perceived safety", also I said "should" in the sentence preceding the one you quoted, but I should've said that the NL ones ARE against making helmets mandatory for exactly the reasons I specify (and that my opinion is that other rights' organizations SHOULD be against it). Quoted directly from tbe website of the, quite well-regarded and not off their rocker, Fietsersbond [1] (under the header "Veilig gevoel?", translated by kagi):
So yes, given that you got into an accident, it is very obviously better if you had worn a helmet (and knee, elbow and wrist pads). However, we don't want only to reduce mortality rates on accidents, we actually want to reduce the amount of accidents wholesale. The above point (and the point in my previous post) is that given mandatory or officially encouraged helmet wearing, you are more likely to get into an accident in the first place, further reducing the number of people willing to cycle, and thus safety for all those who still are willing.I wanted to react to your car/seatbelt point, but I realize now you are the same person arguing about what constitutes starting points in the sibling thread. I don't mean to spread FUD and I also disagree that this is indeed FUD. I'm sorry that Austria is not as nice a place for cyclists as you would like it to be. I hope with this oil crisis you will find a way to foment some change re the emancipation of cyclists in your locality or even country.
[0] https://old.reddit.com/r/fuckcars/comments/ut5fcx/why_is_thi...
[1] https://www.fietsersbond.nl/helmplicht/
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...
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.
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.
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.
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
>I do that. This was never a problem
The most problematic people in traffic are never aware that they are the problem.
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
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.
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).
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.
> 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.
> and I give priority to pedestrians when I'm riding my bike
Even when you "actually want to get somewhere"?
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!
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.
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.
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.
Through acoustic testing, the research team identified a narrow frequency band – a “safety gap” – capable of penetrating ANC headphone filters. This range lies between 750 and 780 Hz.
Building an entire product around EQ crossover frequencies (which are not standardized or regulated in any way) seems a bit risky to me. Those are things that could change at any time, as could the shapes of the EQ curves themselves. there are fads in engineering design like anything else and in this wholly digital era they tend to cycle and proliferate faster because increased performance (or at least hte temporary consumer perception of such ) is only a software update away. People are extraordinarily susceptible to placebo effects in the audio realm (probably because most people prioritize their visual sense), so just moving EQ crossovers around or making them dynamically adjustable is an easy path to consumer buzz. You see this all the time with pro audio plugins.
Next challange: Place a camera in front of the bike that scans approaching pedestrians. Calculate their head position and trajectory. Use directional speakers and focused sound beams to focus the ~780Hz sound towards the head(s) of the pedestrian(s). Now that you are not bothering the environment as much, you can increase the volume as well.
I would love that but not so much for pedestrians as for cars that don't see me on my bike. Ideally, the "bell" would automatically honk at them very loudly when they get too close.
I carry air horn and stick. But I am pedestrian.
what
Sound beam aimed at person in the way.
Bell costs more than the bike is ok?
Bike is optional extra
Can't wait for a headphone commercial that claims that their ANC is so good you won't hear those annoying bicycle bells :)
This may also be of interest to people - emulating a car horn for bikes https://loudbicycle.com/
(of course, there's also the locomotive horn, but the equipment required is a bit impractical - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XTQSWtK65PE)
I use the loud bicycle horn on my daily rider, it’s excellent. Car drivers actually respect it. Prevents right hooks
Or this: https://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B000ACAMJC (compressed air).
I've periodically toyed with the idea of adding a locomotive horn to my motorized vehicle, but I'd be afraid that using it would cause an accident.
After 10+ year biking in Amsterdam I never use my bicycle bell. Instead I try to predict their trajectory and steer around it, way more predictable because everyone responds differently
People use their ears to navigate traffic (as non-car-users) much more than they realize. There's a reason kids need to be drilled in "look both ways before crossing the street" - you can hear that there's no car coming, what's the problem? There's a reason electric cars need to make that strange noise so you can, in fact, hear them coming. Absolutely a headphone user, with not only ANC to reduce external noises but loud music to mask them, is missing a primary sense for navigating traffic. Absolutely these things increase accidents from minor (someone walking into the path of a cyclist on a multi-use path, oblivious to bells and callouts) to major.
But can that bell penetrate loud music? How many people really walk around with ANC headphones just as a "cone of silence" device?
This bell would be illegal in Denmark, where our laws clearly state that you are only allowed one signal giving device and that any signal giving devices attached to vehicles (including bikes) can only produce one constant sound.
How this would be enforced is a different topic.
Not entirely the same in Norway, but the rule as written is roughly translated "Sound signal: A bike should have a bell. Other signalling devices are prohibited".
Doesn't stop me from using an AirZound or digital airhorn. Saved me countless times. Like a bell is heard by a driver blasting their stereo while checking their phone, slowly veering into the cycle lane.
Really? I would have guessed you could argue that it qualifies as „one signal giving device“ since it is one single piece of equipment (ie the horn in a car also has many parts, but it‘s presumably fine) and also that it „only produces one constant sound“, where that sound is composed of different frequencies (again, car horns probably don‘t have a pure tone in Denmark either, right?).
Non of those laws are enforced, ever. Even if you get stopped by police. When have you last seen a bike with all the mandetory reflectors?
Video version which has more detail than the text: https://youtu.be/zDaVPfpQvPI?is=sSyjXf07r9cg9r4Y
Bit cringe marketing though.
I find the "Heard five seconds earlier, the difference between a serious collision and stepping aside" take hilarious. As if there is no other way to prevent a collision in five seconds other than the pedestrian getting out of the way.
As much as I get the urge to plow through pedestrians on bike paths (and stay proudly in the way of bikes on pedestrian paths), in real life, normal people don't do that kind of thing. Bikes have brakes for a reason.
Yeah, this while video I honestly couldn’t stop chuckling because it’s built on assumption that bicycles somehow either can’t brake at all or will take five business days to brake like a freight train. Though looking at Berlin cyclists the assumption seems to be true - so many of them insist on just plowing headfirst into an obstacle instead of braking that I start to think that the video was made by one of such cyclists.
But if you go at 40km/h the time goes down to one or two seconds!
absolutely filled with misleading "science" and outright lies, so they can charge a premium for a bell.
Draw a line, say this is for bicycles, pedestrians and cars have no business here, and bikes have no business being on any other lane as long as these exist.
When bikes have to go through areas where people walk freely, they need to limit their speed to a walking pace.
People should not wear headphones (noise-cancelling or not) when going through traffic as pedestrians. Take them off when crossing!
People should not hear loud music when driving - max is normal speaking voice level. Bike drivers should never hear any music, let alone wearing headphones. Behind-ear speakers on low could be a compromise.
Hey, we just solved 90% of the accidents.
> Draw a line, say this is for bicycles, pedestrians and cars have no business here, and bikes have no business being on any other lane as long as these exist.
This is the reality in many cities, if it weren't for the hopefully not surprising fact that people don't always obey traffic laws perfectly.
Unfortunately, the UK seems almost incapable of building usable cycle infrastructure (possibly excepting London). Your idea is just a recipe for magic protective paint and even more abuse of cyclists who don't want to be forced to use ridiculously badly designed infrastructure. e.g. Here in Bristol, we have an infamous shared cycle/pedestrian pavement along Coronation Rd that has a few trees completely blocking the cycle side which just means conflict between pedestrians and cyclists who have to fight over the scraps left over from motorists taking most of the space (https://www.google.com/maps/@51.4462522,-2.6064792,3a,75y,80...).
Sorry I didn't write "don't have trees in the middle of the cycling lanes", I should have been more clear.
Also "don't let the restaurants cover the pavement with tables" follows the same logic.
Perhaps, planners should travel the route three times for every permitted mode of transportation, including walking, biking, and driving.
> Hey, we just solved 90% of the accidents.
No, you didn't. And restricting cyclists and pedestrians will not result in even small dent in the numbers of maimed or killed people in traffic. It's one mode of transport that's responsible for the vast amount of it, and that's the motorized one propelling several tonnes.
> and bikes have no business being on any other lane as long as these exist
And cars have no business being on other roads as long as highways exist ;)
I meant biking accidents this product is obviously trying to solve.
> And cars have no business being on other roads as long as highways exist ;)
Biking lanes are not comparable to highways. Where I'm living, if you bike on car lanes when biking lanes exist, or if you bike on sidewalks at all, you get a hefty fine depending on the situation and if you possess one, you get points on your driving license.
Exceptions are turning, leaving the road, the lane being blocked by a clueless driver etc. obviously.
Cars are also not allowed on biking lanes, neither are pedestrians. Same exceptions apply.
Highways are more comparable to railroads, maybe.
This only leaves open how to enforce all of it without everybody shouting domestic terror.
How do we enforce seatbelts? (1) Assume the public aren't stupid. (2) Assume the public aren't murderers. (3) Explain the risk-benefit analysis through informative videos like https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Julie_(1998_film).
People can shout "domestic terror" all they like, but if it's not true, it's not true.
Wearing a seatbelt cost next to nothing in inconvenience. Not being able to listen to music or have phone calls with noise cancellation while walking does not really compare.
Of course this requires compensating for the loss in awareness through hearing by looking more diligently before crossing a bike lane, but unfortunately, some people never learn this, or only through a few close calls.
"Annoyingly" ringing a bell and converting a potential accident into a close call seems pretty close to optimal to me.
"Next to nothing in inconvenience" is the perception now. It certainly wasn't the perception when seatbelts were introduced. The ability to listen to personal music while walking is less than 50 years old: before that, you had the radio or nothing. Even that would not be an intolerable inconvenience for most. But I was more thinking:
> People should not hear loud music when driving - max is normal speaking voice level.
which feels like a more than acceptable constraint to me.
> People should not hear loud music when driving - max is normal speaking voice level.
Oh, completely agreed on that one. In a car, you are also by far better protected than any cyclists you might encounter, so you shouldn't make it harder to hear their signaling. (I still wouldn't rely on any car having heard my bell if I don't get any other confirmation that the driver has noticed me, e.g. sufficiently slowing down as they are approaching the intersection where I have right of way.)
But GGP also said
> People should not wear headphones (noise-cancelling or not) when going through traffic as pedestrians. Take them off when crossing!
and that's what I think goes too far. Why should I remove my headphones if I look both ways before crossing a bike lane or road?
The ideal rule would of course be that only those pedestrians remove their headphones that are otherwise inattentive... Although I have my doubts that they'd remember.
You are answering different question. What you are saying is called awareness campaign or something. Enforcement of seatbelts is done by police with fines/tickets and is possible cause it's visible from outside.
Other things like loudness levels inside cars cannot be monitored without going in full totalitarian mode.
Why would enforcement be necessary, given assumptions 1 and 2 (not stupid, not murderers), and awareness? Around these parts, seatbelt enforcement isn't necessary because everyone voluntarily wears their seatbelt – except for children, occasionally, but the adults are generally capable of enforcing that. (Even teenagers / young adults being irresponsible in cars generally wear seatbelts while doing so.)
Cause humans works that way. We don't calculate risks based on statistics in everyday life. That means you can't just make people aware, you need to build cultural norm around that. But cultural norms without enforcement are easy to erode. When norm is systematically broken it ceases to be norm.
>seatbelt enforcement isn't necessary because everyone voluntarily wears their seatbelt
You obviously don't travel much. There are whole countries where seatbelts are rarely used, and drivers buy special plugs for belt receptacles to silence beeping.
If "shouldn't" worked we'd have no industrial accidents without any safety measures, no unwanted pregnancies and in general would more or less achieve heaven on Earth.
It's almost hilarious that such efforts are spent on bicycle bells while emergency vehicles are featuring deafeningly loud alarms to penetrate the sound isolation of cars.
Begun, the noise-cancelling wars have.
I need a noise canceller canceller canceller.
For a moment I thought this was an April fools joke product.
Pretty cool though!
Same here, surprised that only you mentioned it here.
It's hard for me to understand why people choose to walk around in public wearing headphones. I'm aware that it's incredibly common, but you put yourself at risk of theft, accident, and of course the mild hearing loss that accompanies _any_ frequent headphone usage. In the case of both theft and accident, you cannot hear your assailant coming, and miss the queues that would otherwise keep you safe.
> and of course the mild hearing loss that accompanies _any_ frequent headphone usage
curious, you got any citations for this claim?
"Loud" is a bit subjective, but in my experience most people make their volume far too loud. Even moreso if you're attempting to overcome the background sound around you.
The articles below discuss both volume and duration. It's also worth checking out the OSHA guidelines which pretty cleanly show the relationship between duration and volume. (ie, "safer" volumes still cause damage with enough duration.)
https://health.clevelandclinic.org/how-to-rock-out-with-ear-...
https://healthcare.utah.edu/healthfeed/2024/01/listen-headph...
https://www.cnet.com/health/wearing-headphones-right-now-fol...
https://www.cdc.gov/niosh/noise/prevent/understand.html
Same reason I listen to music or podcasts in the car.
I am very lucky to live in a city/country where risks of theft from my person is low - when I lived for 20 years in London I never once felt unsafe listening to music.
The closest was two young men got very close to me on the tube, when I was playing on my brand new Hong Kong imported PSP - but I just took my headphones off. I think they were just interested as most people hadn't seem one in the flesh yet.
I can't say I know of anyone personally who suffered theft or accident caused by them listening to music on headphones.
When I cycled a lot, I had a small speaker strapped to my handlebars rather than wearing headphones, as I liked being able to hear cars around me - but when I was younger I regularly cycled in headphones, and was still able to hear enough of the road around me to not feel that I was missing anything.
Remember, we don't make drivers drive around with no music and their windows open, so that they are better able to hear cyclists...
I know a few people that simply wear headphones to help with managing sensory overload, so I wouldn't assume that having headphones on is a guarantee of listening to something (though still likely to be strongly correlated).
As far as assailants, a skilled ninja wouldn't be detected even if their target weren't wearing headphones...
It's a definitive statement that you don't want to talk to people. In London not wearing headphones ironically means you become a target for people who want your attention. And it blocks out the otherwise very loud cityscape.
Are you really living your life walking around thinking about the next assailant?!
Must be terrifying.
Where I used to live it was smart not to wear headphones, being it for muggers, drunk drivers, random shootings or crazy dogs. It was not a chill place no.
Not these days, but I moved away from Baltimore.
Many neurodivergent people are simply overwhelmed by the sound on the streets
Cool idea. But bizarre that they worked with Deliveroo. Bike bells were designed for a time when cyclists travelled at speeds where you could safely get out of the way.
Most "independent" cyclists do cycle safely.
But delivery riders for delivery platforms commonly use illegally modified e-bikes. Platforms have the GPS data. They must know.
They could make huge improvements in safety by actively preventing the use of illegally modified e-bikes that travel too fast.
>They could make huge improvements in safety by actively preventing the use of illegally modified e-bikes that travel too fast.
Or by regulating bicycle food delivery services so thatheir employees' continued employment and wage magnitude doesn't hinge quite so thoroughly on how rapidly they deliver.
Yes, absolutely that.
I nearly put a passive aggressive "employees" in my post, but that would mix concerns. But having drivers as "contractors", and dodging employers' responsibilities and liabilities, is really the root of this all.
Great idea, kinda ridiculous they tested it in VR and not out there in real life, since it is a bell, not a car they need to manufacture to test it.
It's mildly interesting, but ultimately it's just a little greenwashing project. They even painted it green to make that clear :)
I've noticed some trains are playing extremely loud announcements (Elizabeth line for example) which makes me think they're trying to penetrate headphones and earphones
Guess why I wear noise cancelling headphones on trains? Because of the excessive announcements!
(I mean seriously excessive. Because in the UK the answer to everything is to create another announcement or poster)
We need to stop the arms race
It is amazing they openly shared their findings [0], but one thing I am missing is what this design would cost if put into mass production. To the biggest layman possible, it reads like while the design is clever and would be more expensive by virtue of more materials/size alone, it's not impractical, but maybe someone more informed on this type of manufacturing can correct my ignorance. If that's the case, hopefully we'll see these designs on the market soon as even with music+ANC, I have found certain sounds to be able to easily penetrate through when listening, though that is purely subjective and I don't have my music earbleedingly loud...
[0] https://cdn.skoda-storyboard.com/2026/04/Skoda-DuoBell-Resea...
You could also not blast past me on the path, yes I am off to one side, and no I don't wear headphones outside.
My horn is my larynx. I usually belt out “please don’t kill me” in a stern voice-of-command at my “max volume.”
A loud voice travels very well through car windows at short distances, even for big soundproof vehicles.
I assumed this bell was for alerting pedestrians or other cyclists wearing noise cancelling headphones.
Well, if you’re on a bicycle and you can see the pedestrian is not paying attention (whether they are on the noise-canceling headphones or are deaf themselves)… do the right thing and proceed with caution. Assume they don’t see you and prepare to stop. Wait for visual confirmation that they saw you.
That will eliminate the bulk of traffic “accidents” involving bicycle and pedestrian; it’s expected and common to do this in the Netherlands.
I have noticed I can make a less sharp sound with my bike bell by ringing it a certain way. I use this to let pedestrians know I am coming but that they don't have to jump out of the way.
Overall this bell seems like the wrong solution, and it took me a while to realize not every country has outlawed headphone wearing for bicyclists, something I guess I took for granted.
It doesn't make sense for a car driven to use headphones, so not sure why it'd make sense for other vehicle-users to use them either, as you say, we really do use our ears to help navigate traffic so allowing people to be so careless seems... Careless?
You can turn up your car stereo and mow over pedestrians undisturbed in your two ton death machine yet I'm not allowed to cycle on a bicycle-only path with with a podcast and transparency mode enabled? For my own safety? Safety from car drivers that fell asleep driving with their stereo on?
Don't know where you live, but where I live it isn't legal to play so loud music that you cannot hear the outside, especially if it's so loud you cannot hear other car horns. So no, neither should be allowed, because again, we use our hearing when we're in traffic to help our other senses.
Mostly for others safety, and I guess if it helps you; for your safety too.
I never said loud. Comfortable podcast listening volume in both cases.
It’s about pedestrians wearing the headphones.
I think it's better to separate dangerous traffic. Have dedicated bike lanes instead of those stupid stripes on the pavement that are really hard to see. Ban cars from city centres (fortunately my city is making some headway with this). Increase public transport.
I wear these things because traffic is too noisy though. Assholes with super loud motorbikes or mopeds in particular, cars aren't the worst.
There's been the odd idiot wearing headphones mowed down on train tracks. The trains air horn didn't get the message through.
The Air Zound is wonderful. You can get pedestrians' attention with light toots. I reserve the full blast for developing danger or people who didn't get the message from the toots.
Survival depends on being heard in a car with closed windows with possible loud radio or squabbling kids.
It may have been intentional. More than one suicide by train has involved the person who died by suicide wearing headphones as they walked on the tracks (it was clear that it was a suicide and not intentional as engineers have reported the person looking at the train when the horn was sounded but not leaving the tracks).
It's unfortunate that this is necessary. It should be obvious that wearing noise cancelling headphones in trafic, including as a pedestrian, is a bad idea.
I'm legally blind, so I have my own bias here, but I think people really over-rely on sight. If you do want to listen to something while walking around a city, I can highly recommend bone conduction headphones, that keep your ears unblocked.
There is, of course, at least one category that don’t over rely upon their hearing: deaf people.
I love to see high-tech mechanical/analog solutions like this. I recently bought a vintage mechanical kitchen timer and it almost feels like you have a different relationship to your possessions when you know they're mechanical.
It's also so nice to know I can put it away and not worry about finding it a year later with the battery I forgot to remove having exploded
My crotchety old neighbours just got one of those high pitched anti-fox speakers.
Was mowing the lawns the other day and could still hear the high pitched tones it emits even with noise cancelling headphones on.
Situation is pretty lame because I liked the foxes sleeping in the garden, super fun to take photos of them and they don't do much harm.
For anyone that wants to actually hear the bell before reading all the marketing material:
Bell sound starts at 2:09 in the video.
And seems to sound like a normal bell, or maybe that's just my ears. I guess I can see why they didn't put it up front, but that was also all I wanted.
No, Google, I do NOT mean "skoda doorbell." Morons.
Meanwhile... you apparently can't buy this thing anywhere.
> In real-world trials conducted on the streets of London in February, in cooperation with Deliveroo couriers, the bell proved so effective that couriers expressed a desire to keep it.
Of course they would, because a lot of them either don’t have any bell, or have a shitty ping-ping bell that doesn’t produce good sound.
Or could sell it on eBay for an amount of money that's nontrivial from POV of a gig economy worker.
A pedestrian shouldn't need to be able to hear to be safe from cyclists. Focusing on headphones is ignoring that the same dangers are being imposed on deaf people and people with otherwise bad hearing. If a cyclist needs to use the bell for safety, they should hit the brakes.
I’m sure Android and iOS could add some AI feature to let some specific noises in the headset when needed (baby cries when enabled, smoke detector alarms, bike/car bells, etc). Simply stop the music for the duration of the specific noise and replay it. That would be a cool use of AI.
So you don't even need Android or iOS for this feature and it's been a thing on certain headsets for a while; both my Sony headphones and buds do this.
It also has an integration with the phone which can add GPS awareness but it works fine without it in my experience.
I genuinely had a similar thought a few days ago while riding my motorbike; I had my AirPods on with noise cancelling, and I was like: I wish there was something that would alert me to horns/bells ... not that AirPods are super efficient at cancelling background noise but still!
Noise cancelling headphones while riding a motorbike is… a choice. Do you also wear a blindfold?
I don't understand why it is my responsibility to hear your bell. Just don't hit me.
If only people had spatial awareness, they would look around vs listening to their phone changing directions randomly while walking. The bell is for both persons safety.
750 Hz. Baby crying sound is around 300-400 Hz and let me tell you my airpods pro definitely let me hear the baby cry. I think Apple built that as an obvious safety feature.
Interestingly, all the shrillness noises (chalkboard, balloon or polystyrene screech) are in similar frequency too.
This might seem weird coming from a car manufacturer but Skoda is a big sponsor of cycling races, most notably of the Tour de France and other ASO races. And as explained in the footer, they started out with building bicycles in the 19th century.
I’m more afraid of cyclists than of cars. I know exactly where the road starts and end, I know there are traffic lights drivers and pedestrians usually respect, so it’s very unlikely that I can get hit by a car. And Im talking about myself, not about the average person (I know stats may say otherwise)
But cyclists can ride in the pedestrian lane, bike lanes and pedestrians lanes are not easily distinguishable (if you are visiting a new city/country for example, and/or the painting of the lanes disappear over time) compared to roads, you typically can hear cars/motorbikes coming (though with electric cars that’s less common) while bikes are very silent, and last but not least, typically there is certain hierarchy when it comes to cars and pedestrians (at least in Europe): pedestrians come first. That’s not the case with bikes (which based on my experience, they share the same level of importance with pedestrians in the streets)
More or less at the time when electric bicycles weighing over 20kg and moving over 30kmh started to drive on sidewalks, I started to avoid living in big cities.
That can’t be aero.
On a serious note there’s a marketing problem in my view: who out there who chooses to buy a bell even considers that their might be a loudness problem? It’s not immediately obvious that I need this and I’m sure there’s a premium price attached.
I bought a nice ding dong bell for my bike, and pedestrians seem to notice it a lot more than the nastier sounding bells.
The problem with headphones is not noise cancellation. It’s the fact they play music.
My regular Widek bell penetrates ANC, but when there’s music, ANC or not, it’s hard to hear. I’m struggling to believe the claims this bell is going to be significantly better.
If this bell gets through ANC then yes it will help people with ANC. It's not an all or nothing situation, you hear it further away for each increase in loudness.
Also, ANC let's you reduce your music volume for the same signal to noise ratio.
Every single person that stops and looks due to this is a win in my book.
So it's tuned to a specific frequency at 780Hz? And that defeats all/most ANC?
That's the interesting bit. Is this a known / agreed upon feature of ANC headphones or just a property of a specific iteration of let's say airpods?
i’m on airpods pro 3, and it’s far from producing noise-cancellation so powerful as to require such measures. perhaps if I’m listening to heavy music at ear-damaging levels. maybe my hearing is too sensitive.
Good to see we’re ensuring cyclists remain as endearing as ever.
Absolutely crazy to be out in traffic with headphones, lead alone noise cancelling ones. I've never even dared to ride my bike on trails with earbuds, the whole thing seems crazy.
Reminds me of old Reich bells http://reich-cycle-bells.de and their „Trillerwerk“ (trill sound)
Living in a city you cannot stand so much that you wear noise cancelling headphones at all times. Commuting to work that you hate and manoeuvring between zombies looking at their phones, wearing noise cancelling headphones, and occasional cars recklessly opening doors or joining the traffic without looking in the mirrors. You even forgot the original goal of saving money because the rent eats 50% of the net salary and work eats every will to live. Here it is - the fruit of your glorious education and mean by which your mortgage is paid is bicycle bell. Thanks for reminding me to stay away from this miserable mess.
I believe devices intended to block necessary external environmental sounds should be prohibited while driving, including cycling.
Remember that a horn is a safety feature.
It's not about the cyclists wearing ANC headsets (which is already prohibited at least in Euro countries), but about pedestrians wearing them. Another problem altogether.
In effect they are, even if not directly. There are requirements to stay aware of your surroundings. If you cause an accident by blocking all sounds, I totally can see insurance companies claiming this is your own responsibility and refusing to cover.
It is of course prohibited in many jurisdictions. it's just not enforceable.
This is more aimed to warn pedestrians who wear ANC headphones. Should people be prohibited from wearing headphones while walking?
If they're walking on a pathway that's shared with bikes and other wheeled transport of speeds greater than walking, then yes.
It is pedestrian who are wearing the ANC to remove the noise outside.
This is amazing. Would be great if emergency vehicle sirens could also adopt these findings. I feel like they're beyond painfully loud these days.
Fun fact: Škoda means "pity" or "damage" in Czech, can also be used as "what a shame".
Happened to be the company founder's surname.
it is quote common family name in Czechia, my daughter's classmate has this family name as well
same with most of the Japanese car brands or even Citroen, Peugeot...
But Citroen and Peugeot don't mean something funny like "What a shame"
I think I would disagree naming the car brand Lemon (Citroen). When life gives you Citroen...
Not a single place to hear how it sounds.
For a device that ONLY produces sound touted as such a re-vo-lu-tio-na-ry device this is a massive marketing failure.
What do you call it when a car manufacturer has a little bicycle division? Is it still greenwashing or is there a more specific term?
hopefully this is because it's a prototype, but doesn't solve the #1 problem with these type of thumb-lever rotating bells: everything (including the axle) is plastic and they break if you look at them funny. The hammer-type with plastic hammers or hinges don't work either; maybe solve the "actually make a noise" problem first.
the experimental report pdf is a fun read. it would be cool if they added each individual bell of the duobell and the combination to tables 4 and 5. (the topline result is in the infographic, but it would be cool to see the effects of the individual contributions of the various features and how they combine)
A slightly more controversial, but equally effective solution would be to glue an angry toddler to your handlebar.
Or pedestrians could walk around with halberds to fend off cyclists steaming through pedestrian areas.
Am I nuts or is "regular bike bell" exactly the kind of sound that ANC does not cancel well?
Here's my hot take: just get rid of bicycle bells and horns altogether. When's the last time you heard one and were usefully informed about some behavioral change to avoid accident? How often does that happen as opposed to needless use of the bell/horn, or not noticing it for whatever reason (let's be charitable and exclude use of ANC headphones, but include general noise levels and boy-who-cried-wolf). How often is it just a jump scare, making traffic less safe?
Just ride/drive a bit more thoughtfully so you don't hurt people, even if they're deaf.
Bike bells are useful for me most weekends to let me know there's a bike soon to overtake me while I'm skating.
Headphones on folks while they're out walking is ridiculous and antisocial and if they get hit because they didn't hear a bell then they had it coming. I only use a single earbud at a time so I don't lose my situational awareness entirely, but even that can still wash out the rest of the world noise pretty well.
> Its a simple analog solution to a digital problem
That's such a beautiful statement
Is it available for sale?
Can't wait for ads delivered via this method.
my Bose quite comfort headphones will still allow any non-regular noise through, I believe that is by design for this very reason. Do other brands not do this?
My trick after biking 10+ years in Amsterdam. Never use your bicycle bell, instead try to predict their trajectory and bike around it. Ringing your bell is always a gamble because everyone responds differently
won't this just make the sound cancelation teams at the tech companies work hard to "improve" their features?
Oh great let’s have even more noise pollution because pedestrians won’t get out of the way of cyclists who are trying to beat their personal best time on their commute to work.
It wouldn't be a problem if pedestrians weren't blocking cycling paths completely while apparently forgetting their hearing aids at home. Some people have even less situational awareness than common sense.
You probably should not be living in a city then.
What if you would rather stay in the bicycle lane instead of terrorizing pedestrians? Quite a lot of taxes were paid for those lanes. Use them, and stay out of my headset.
E.g. in Germany many pedestrians, especially tourists, tend to think that bycicle lanes are fancily-painted sidewalks
Intentionally deaf people hate this one trick.
looks like one of those things the ad agency (AMV BBDO) claims to have invented just in time for awards season
That's fantastic. Where can I buy one?
I carry air horn. Great for dogs and aggressive cyclists. Pedestrians have no obligation to jump into ditch, to clear walking path for speeding cyclists!
In Germany we have rules, and one of those rules is that pedestrians on the sidewalk who are in the cyclepath (usually a too-subtle red stone) do, in fact, have to get out of the way for cyclists.
I imagine there's also a rule about directing airhorns against law abiding cyclists.
> In Germany we have rules, and one of those rules is that pedestrians on the sidewalk who are in the cyclepath (usually a too-subtle red stone) do, in fact, have to get out of the way for cyclists.
Yeah that's the problem, it's often too subtle and hard to notice.
That's why bike lanes should be dedicated with a stone barrier/kerb, or bikes should just not be allowed there.
I am quite often in Germany.
Red stone in Germany is cycling path, not general walk path where cyclists are not allowed.
Air horns are generally allowed upto 105 dB. Peper spray, telescopic batons and other similar devices are illegal. I also carry walking cane.
Just when you thought interacting with cyclists couldn't get any more annoying... introducing the Škoda DuoBell! New from Mattel!
This is one of those ideas that sounds a bit like marketing fluff at first, but the underlying problem is actually very real
So where can I buy this thing?
People don't tend to wear anc headsets when walking the Forrest.
Maybe the issue is the noise in the cities?
There’s more than one issue. It’s not wrong to try to solve one of them.
Some people wear them there.
As perfectly captured in "don't _tend_ to ..."
Where can I buy this??
Pretty cool if true!
That's nice and all, but the onus is really on the person walking on shared paths with noise cancelling headphones. My bell works fine, and I ring it before passing peds as the law requires, so I don't intend to waste money on a new bell anytime soon.
nice but it wont help with isolating earbuds
Oh great, cyclist gonna annoy me even in headphones
I always hate having my headphones on ANC on the street. It makes me feel really exposed and disconnected. I tend to use transparency when out and about.
A reminder that a gun [0] would also work as a bicycle bell that works despite noise-cancelling headphones.
[0] https://xkcd.com/1217/
[dead]
[dead]
[flagged]
"Eschew flamebait. Avoid generic tangents."
https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=true&que...
I don't know where you're from, but in Germany for example, there are countless situations where cyclists and pedestrians share the same space, or pedestrians can (or just do…) cross bicycle lanes. I'm a very law-abiding cyclist since witnessing a few horrible accidents, and yet I encounter situations with headphone-wearing pedestrians regularly. Often I'll ring my bell to no avail, until driving right up to them, and they still won't hear me. This is really frustrating; I'm definitely in the market for this.
> I'm a very law-abiding cyclist since witnessing a few horrible accidents, and yet I encounter situations with headphone-wearing pedestrians regularly. Often I'll ring my bell to no avail, until driving right up to them, and they still won't hear me. This is really frustrating; I'm definitely in the market for this.
I’m guessing some law (law-abiding) gives you the right to bother people who are using their own feet instead of wheels because you want to pass them and they should have to actively watch out for you and yield to you? Okay, that part is fine. But I don’t see how it is nice or, I dunno, ethical.
In my experience (in my locale) as a cyclist you either give pedestrians a wide enough berth, dismount so that you can pass them if it is crowded and there is no passage, or use the vehicular road.
I remember violating this one time when I belled someone that I wanted to pass on the sidewalk. But I was a child at the time. Even more self-centered than I am now.
These seeming rules for yielding to cyclists are worse than the laws and norms when cars interact with bicycles, by the way. At least where I am: cars never honk cyclists. They have to wait for them or find a window to pass them safely. They can’t honk them into the ditch or something.
> I’m guessing some law (law-abiding) gives you the right to bother people who are using their own feet instead of wheels because you want to pass them and they should have to actively watch out for you and yield to you? Okay, that part is fine. But I don’t see how it is nice or, I dunno, ethical.
No. There are just people who will walk on a designated bicycle lane because they haven't seen the signage, are ignorant or careless about it, or will just cross it to get somewhere else. All while wearing ANC headphones. This isn't about bothering someone, but warning them. It's really no different from someone jaywalking without seeing you, and honking to make them aware of that. Or are you supposing you'd just break and wait until they're finished crossing the street?
I totally agree in the context of bicycle lanes.
Sorry. Apparently I didn’t read your comment carefully enough.
I am aware that most countries do not have dedicated roads for cyclists, but that doesn't mean that cyclists should be using sidewalks. When I go out and walk on the sidewalk, I expect to be able to just walk safely without having to think about potential riders of bicycles or other things that people ride on sidewalks.
No he meant this: https://www.fahrradstadt-braunschweig.de/wp-content/uploads/...
Left side is for bicycles. Right side for pedestrians. It is a dedicated lane but a shared space.
They have other signs, where there's no dedicated lane either.
> I am aware that most countries do not have dedicated roads for cyclists, but that doesn't mean that cyclists should be using sidewalks.
Huh? Germany has signs on same shared pavements that tell you that by law your bike needs to be on there, not on the road.
Are you suggesting people break the law over your preferences?
Then it's a stupid law. But from the image that other commenter gave, it does look like Germany has space that is clearly intended for cyclists, and I have no issue with that. I have issue with instances when people cycle on sidewalks intended for pedestrians.
It's not always as clearly demarcated as on that picture; sometimes there's just a sign.
I would also argue that a reasonably broad way for pedestrians and bicyclists can be shared without any issue, if both parties pay some modicum of attention to their surroundings and treat each other with mutual respect: Pedestrians by keeping to the right side of the path, and cyclists by slowing down when overtaking and ringing the bell to let people know they are approaching.
Also: kids under a certain age are generally required to cycle on the footpath. They need bells, too.
If just slowing down helps to prevent an accident, not sure what the bell would be good for - except for signaling your frustration to everyone around you
A lot of footpaths in Europe are designated paths that are shared with cyclists
Edit 2: I originally didn’t think of the case when you want to warn pedestrians that you are passing (without asking them to give way) in case they decide to switch direction without looking if there is any incoming entities. That seems legitimate to me. Although giving a wide enough berth might be better than doing it routinely (that could amount to a lot of noise eventually).
Edit: Since people seem to go either way: It is my understanding that in my part of the world (in Scandinavia) cyclists do not have the right of way on sidewalks (which means they can’t bell people away). They also (and I know this one) do not have the right of way while cycling across road crossings. Something that most cyclists, in my experience, violate all the time.
Quite. It drives me up the wall when cyclists not only use the sidewalk close enough to me to practically graze me (pedestrian), but expect me to actively pay attention and yield to them. Use the road, dummy (there are scarce few bicycle lanes).
I use regular headphones (not over-ear and not really noise canc.) on the sidewalk but take them off when I am crossing the street. And I of course am mindful of other pedestrians. But I’m not gonna take them off because some two-wheeler thinks they can ram into me unless I jump out of the way on the sidewalk.
At least here in Austria, I honestly rarely, if ever, see them do that. Either roads or dedicated/mixed designated cycle paths. We do have enforcement even against cyclists, though more than anything, that catches all the "unlocked" e-bikes, because cycling on the sidewalks is not a thing anyone does.
Even with bikes being off the sidewalk, there is need for a quick way of getting others pedestrians attention.
As a cyclist in London, I’ve hit one pedestrian: they stepped backward(!) into a cycle lane. I had nowhere to go, as there was a curb on the other side. Pedestrian behaviour is just totally wild with respect to cycle lanes, a lot of them are just totally oblivious. If you cycle, you will come across people walking along or stepping into dedicated cycle lanes several times during the average commute.
e.g.: In Amsterdam you cross biking lanes to cross the roads sometimes, or bike lanes and sidewalks are so integrated, you can wander into them without noticing.
Being tired in a crowded street in rainy weather doesn't help either.
Well, sure, as soon as infrastructure exists so the alternative isn't "get run over by a homicidal driver". And actual infrastructure, not painted lines that typically get filled up with double-parking cars.
This is always an odd one, as it’s the people who look like they just found a bike in a skip and decided to ride around here that cycle on the pavements.
I'm often a pedestrian and I've been known to walk into the road where there are bikes and cars also.
this was not really an issue before food delivery apps came into fashion
btw. kids up until certain age can pretty much in all countries ride bike legally on sidewalk, are there any countries where 8yo can't ride bike on sidewalk?
It's a problem in the US where bicycle food delivery is really rare. Even in places with good bike lanes, they'll often prefer the sidewalk because if there is some sort of obstacle in the bike lane (e.g. a car that parked illegally), it won't jump out of the way for them like a pedestrian with a sense of self-preservation, which would mean they might have to slow down.
What if they are shared?
Agreed. Make bike paths and people cycle on bike paths. Crazy stuff I know!
not all of them do
I think I’d prefer AI slop comments to comments like this.