Skip to content Skip to main navigation

Transport

Chamberlains - complete legal services for business

The No Bell Bicyclists

By Zan - 27 December 2012 189

An encounter today on the shared footpath/bicycle caused a bicyclist who had no bell. We did not hear him coming from behind. I asked him where his bell was. He said he didn’t need one as it didn’t fit on his bars.

Well here is what you need under the ACT Road Rules:

258 Equipment on a bicycle

A person must not ride a bicycle that does not have:

(a) at least 1 effective brake; and

(b) a bell, horn, or similar warning device, in working order.

Offence provision.

What’s Your opinion?


Please login to post your comments
189 Responses to
The No Bell Bicyclists
46
wildturkeycanoe 2:50 pm
28 Dec 12
#

milkman said :

wildturkeycanoe said :

Zan, I wonder if you drive a car. If you did, how do you contain your frustration at the constant law breaking on our roads every minute of your travels?
If the person coming up behind you was on a skateboard, roller skates or fold up scooter, would you still be in angst if they didn’t “ring” before overtaking you?
Now here is an interesting scenario to add to your worries – if the pedestrian has their MP3 player plugged in and blaring ACDC at 90dB, how do they hear your bicycle bell? The whole concept of fair warning goes out the window, so should they ban personal music headsets from shared paths too????

So because some people break the law that makes it ok for others? Really?

Putting words in my mouth there, how did you come up with that conclusion?? Really??

Report this comment

47
jayskette 3:03 pm
28 Dec 12
#

Bells should only be used for things in your way, such as the many couples/groups of friends who decide to use both lanes in a shared path. Bells used as a warning of approach do not always work in your favour as many dogs/humans suddenly moving to the right will tell you 😛

Report this comment

48
drfelonious 3:07 pm
28 Dec 12
#

The problem is a lack of appreciation by pedestrians that the paths are shared. Not owned by pedestrians – but shared. I wonder Zan are you the self-appointed policewoman of pedestrians keeping to the left as well?

Zan seems to assume cyclists will ring their bell whenever they are coming up behind – regardless of whether or not you are taking up the whole path. But why would a cyclist need to ring his/her bell if there is oodles of space and Zan is keeping to the left side of the path as per the numerous signs requiring pedestrians to keep to the left? Hmmmmmm I wonder if the real problem here is that Zan thinks she owns the whole path.

What Zan as an anti-cyclist pedestrian completely fails to appreciate is that not everyone is like Zan (and thank goodness for that). Other pedestrians expect different behaviour from cyclists – indeed many pedestrians wish for cyclists not to ring their bells so as not to disturb their walk. Yet other pedestrians assume that they can take up both sides of the path and expect bikes to go around them – bell or no bell.

As a very regular cyclist I have to anticipate all sorts of idiosyncratic behaviour from pedestrians and need to be prepared to take evasive action at all times. In years of cycling I have never hit a pedestrian, nor seen a pedestrian hit (despite a lot of random behaviours by pedestrians). I have, however, seen several horrific accidents where cyclists have been hit by cars.

So lets get things in perspective shall we?

I hope Zan treats the New Year as an opportunity to focus all that retirement spare time on finding some solutions to real problems. Or maybe ride a mile in a cyclist’s shoes by getting on a bike to see how the other half live.

Report this comment

49
snoopydoc 3:08 pm
28 Dec 12
#

It’s often a toss-up as to which is more likely to cause a collision (or a sudden stop/swerve), ringing your bell and hoping they don’t jump the wrong way when they do the “Oh my, what the hell is that? A bike? On a cycle/shared path?!” dance maneuver… or plotting a safe course around them which will be just fine if they don’t very suddenly change course (in the no-bell situation, the majority of situationally unaware pedestrians tend to be behind me before they have had time to have their surprised jumping fit reaction).

Similarly, it’s difficult to know what will make the pedestrian more affronted… having a bell rung insistently behind them as you approach (interpreted wrongly as a rude “Get out of the way” rather than the polite warning it is intended to be)… or being startled when you ride past without warning them because you judged it would probably be safer, based on age/gender/headphones/degree of randomness of their trajectory so far, position of other (particularly oncoming) path traffic, etc.

I personally use my bell and if they think it’s rude… well… it’s not my fault they’re a moron.

Report this comment

50
DrKoresh 3:57 pm
28 Dec 12
#

bikhet said :

To all those getting stuck into Zan – you’re a bunch of self-centered pricks.

In another thread there’s a report of someone doing 168 in a 90 zone. No-one was hurt as a result of the driver’s stupidity. Do you claim that that driver can break the law because it doesn’t suit him? That what you are doing on behalf of the cyclist without a bell.

How Canberran!

That my friend, is a false analogy. The potential for injury caused by a car is exponentially greater than that of a bicycle, but we’re not even talking about speeding here. All Zan is upset about is that the person didn’t have a bell, but if they did have one and had still ridden past without ringing it the cyclist wouldn’t be committing any offence. It sounds like the OP is just a controlling busy-body with too much time on her hands. I don’t see how that makes me self-centred, if anything it sounds like Zan thinks she is the centre of the universe and it’s laws must conform to her will.

Report this comment

51
Grrrr 6:34 pm
28 Dec 12
#

DrKoresh said :

All Zan is upset about is that the person didn’t have a bell, but if they did have one and had still ridden past without ringing it the cyclist wouldn’t be committing any offence.

Finally, someone gets to the crux of the matter.

Zan – it’s a non-issue, so get over it.

Report this comment

52
bikhet 6:46 pm
28 Dec 12
#

DrKoresh said :

bikhet said :

To all those getting stuck into Zan – you’re a bunch of self-centered pricks.

In another thread there’s a report of someone doing 168 in a 90 zone. No-one was hurt as a result of the driver’s stupidity. Do you claim that that driver can break the law because it doesn’t suit him? That what you are doing on behalf of the cyclist without a bell.

How Canberran!

That my friend, is a false analogy. The potential for injury caused by a car is exponentially greater than that of a bicycle, but we’re not even talking about speeding here. All Zan is upset about is that the person didn’t have a bell, but if they did have one and had still ridden past without ringing it the cyclist wouldn’t be committing any offence. It sounds like the OP is just a controlling busy-body with too much time on her hands. I don’t see how that makes me self-centred, if anything it sounds like Zan thinks she is the centre of the universe and it’s laws must conform to her will.

Only false in part. The point I was making was that both the idiotic driver and the bell-less cyclist have chosen to break the law. Yes, one act had a greater potential to cause harm than the other, but both are illegal.

Report this comment

53
Sandman 7:13 pm
28 Dec 12
#

I find it funny that the initial response by the OP after the “encounter” was to do a thorough check to ensure all guidelines and requirements were being met by the “offending party”. It’s almost as though the purpose of the walk was to find something to whine about.

The first rule of whine club – you don’t whine about whine club.

Report this comment

54
poetix 8:49 pm
28 Dec 12
#

I hope I never run into Zan when I’m walking the dogs and have forgotten a plastic bag…Citizen’s arrest?

Report this comment

55
s-s-a 10:21 pm
28 Dec 12
#

Now, a bicyclist being a human being, there is only one type of encounter that causes human beings to come into existence, and this type of encounter is also illegal in this instance as it is not permitted in a public place

More than one type of encounter these days. The kind that “caused” the small bicyclist in my household isn’t illegal in public and I wasn’t even present when it happened!

Report this comment

56
DrKoresh 11:41 pm
28 Dec 12
#

s-s-a said :

More than one type of encounter these days. The kind that “caused” the small bicyclist in my household isn’t illegal in public and I wasn’t even present when it happened!

+1,000,000,000!
Isn’t science wonderful?

Report this comment

57
Aeek 4:35 pm
29 Dec 12
#

I rode with an air horn for 6 months, then it died. The number of pedestrians who completely ignored it was impressive. My guess is because it was so loud they assumed it was on the nearby road and not on the path behind them.

Report this comment

58
Frustrated 8:04 pm
29 Dec 12
#

sien said :

The person’s voice is a similar device.

Bells are risky. A bell can make someone suddenly move left, right, stop or who knows what. Try ringing a bell near someone from a country that drives on the left.

You can also have a bell, and not use the device.

BS, they morons who ride around the bicyle paths yelling out ‘Bike’ at their top of their voice is not different.

Or the wankers who ask you to move out of there way, because there bikes are suitable to be ridden on grass.

I dont care what type of push bike you have, they are pedestrian paths also.

Report this comment

59
Aeek 9:08 pm
29 Dec 12
#

Frustrated said :

Or the wankers who ask you to move out of there way, because there bikes are suitable to be ridden on grass.

There are those who choose to walk on the right, on the understanding they will move out of the way.
How to tell them vs those walking on the wrong side?

Report this comment

60
DrKoresh 10:01 pm
29 Dec 12
#

Aeek said :

I rode with an air horn for 6 months, then it died. The number of pedestrians who completely ignored it was impressive. My guess is because it was so loud they assumed it was on the nearby road and not on the path behind them.

Maybe they decided that the type of person of obnoxious enough to use an airhorn as a bicycle bell wouldn’t be worth pissing on if they were on fire, let alone moving to the left.

Report this comment

Related Articles

CBR Tweets

Sign up to our newsletter

Top
Copyright © 2016 Riot ACT Holdings Pty Ltd. All rights reserved.

Search across the site