The No Bell Bicyclists

Felix the Cat said :

KB1971 said :

I just have to say this ….. WHAT AN AWESOME RIDE TO WORK TODAY!!!!

All the car drivers were courteous, all the dog owners had their dogs on leads, all the pedestrians were walking left and not wandering all over the place like a mixo rabbit.

& the morning was beautiful. So much better than commuting by car.

Checks date on calender, hmmm not April 1st yet.

No, no, true story I swear 🙂

Postalgeek said :

Comic_and_Gamer_Nerd said :

Postalgeek said :

Comic_and_Gamer_Nerd said :

To all those basically saying keep your children in line while walking, do you have kids? Do you remember stumbling as a kid. It’s up to a responsible cyclist to identify a child and slow the eff down.

To reiterate my very first sentence:

I agree that cyclists should be extra careful around kids and animals, and abusing them doesn’t reflect well on the abuser (though ‘abuse’ is in the eye of the beholder).

Yes I have kids and I do not think busy thoroughfares are the best place for them to learn direction and balance.

But hey, if you think your kids should be free to swerve in front of oncoming cyclists, whatever their speed, good for you. Let me know how it works out for you.

It’s worked out great so far. We all keep left as much as possible and the cyclists so far have always gone around without issue.

Yep, there’s that keeping left thing working for you. Good to hear.

You too miss the point. Children are unpredictable and i refuse to put mine on a leash like some sort of animal. i will do best i can, but you better god damn slow down and take care if you pass us.

I also do not give a crap if you yell bike or ring a bell or start singing like a kookaburra, just make sure you notify us of your presence and i will do my best to not only keep left but also kep left of the left side of the path.

Baldy said :

Now if you please step aside, some of us are trying to have a real conversation.

Offering your all-important ‘opinion’ via meaningless generalisations is a ‘real conversation’?

When did that happen?

I’ll have to let all the scientists know they can down tools, as we won’t need any of those pesky ‘facts’ anymore, apparently the sanctity of ‘my opinion’ is good enough these days.

KB1971 said :

I just have to say this ….. WHAT AN AWESOME RIDE TO WORK TODAY!!!!

All the car drivers were courteous, all the dog owners had their dogs on leads, all the pedestrians were walking left and not wandering all over the place like a mixo rabbit.

& the morning was beautiful. So much better than commuting by car.

Checks date on calender, hmmm not April 1st yet.

Postalgeek said :

wildturkeycanoe said :

Postalgeek, you obviously have no children. If you think lashing kids together like train cars to prevent drifting onto the wrong side of the track is what should happen, you really need a wake up call into reality. Here is a quote from the TAMS website about shared paths – “Cyclists should give way to pedestrians and other users at all times”. It does not say cyclists have a right to free passage without impediment from toddlers. Next you’ll be wanting dogs on leashes in these leash free areas in case they run out in front of you or walking licenses to be issued after completing a competency test, to see if you can pace a straight line for 10 metres without veering /- 30cm. Walking whilst drunk or under the influence of drugs should be banned as well as talking on a mobile, listening to loud music or whilst engaging in the consumption of food and/or beverages.

Nice straw man, with a subtle hint of hysteria. I liked the bit about wanting dogs on leashes in off-leash areas.

Equally entertaining was your pick of the choice cuts of the TAMS dictate while ignoring the rest:

Shared path
(Mostly black bitumen often marked with white centre lines)
The use of shared paths is restricted to non-motorised transport (with the exception of motorised wheelchairs and power assisted pedal cycles). Both pedestrians and cyclists must share the use of these paths. Please respect all users and be prepared to give way to cyclists and pedestrians as necessary. When cycling, warn of your approach by sounding your bell; if you are cycling or walking, keep to the left. Cyclists should pass pedestrians on the right. Cyclists should give way to pedestrians and other users at all times. If you are a pedestrian, keep a look out for cyclists and give them room to pass. Dogs must be on a leash at all times.

http://www.tams.act.gov.au/roads-transport/cycling/cycling_information/road_rules

I’m sorry, as much as you print things in the media, on paper or otherwise, generally toddlers do not read, do not focus on a bell ringing when there is an exciting butterfly fluttering off in the distance and have the ability to rely on their younger sibling to distract Mum for minutes on end.
When a cyclist, able to ride in excess of 40km/h on a bike path with clearance between left and right lanes of less than half a metre, has to react to a possible collision with animate object doing 10km/h in perpendicular vector it leaves little time to remember the rules.
If you want some assistance in understanding this issue, the following link has some interesting points regarding shared paths, their jurisdiction being administered by the authorities and 10km/h speed limits for shared paths, http://ntc.gov.au/rfcDocuments/DOC2112112011122115343511642.pdf
Liability comes into play here, so if words do not convince you, perhaps dollars and cents will.
I cannot believe I’ve become anti-cycling from the point of view of a pedestrian. Even as a cyclist I cannot understand your point of view. However, if I could BOLD something it would be “Please respect all users.”. That pretty much sums up the one problem with not just cycle paths, but society in general.
Also, apologies for the comment about you not being a parent, your reply to someone else beat my post. [Plus, it was a little insensitive]. Insert peace sign here —>

Dilandach said :

Cyclists don’t like the crap that some drivers pull so why do it to pedestrians?

A very good point.

Dilandach said :

Postalgeek said :

wildturkeycanoe said :

Postalgeek, you obviously have no children. If you think lashing kids together like train cars to prevent drifting onto the wrong side of the track is what should happen, you really need a wake up call into reality. Here is a quote from the TAMS website about shared paths – “Cyclists should give way to pedestrians and other users at all times”. It does not say cyclists have a right to free passage without impediment from toddlers. Next you’ll be wanting dogs on leashes in these leash free areas in case they run out in front of you or walking licenses to be issued after completing a competency test, to see if you can pace a straight line for 10 metres without veering /- 30cm. Walking whilst drunk or under the influence of drugs should be banned as well as talking on a mobile, listening to loud music or whilst engaging in the consumption of food and/or beverages.

Nice straw man, with a subtle hint of hysteria. I liked the bit about wanting dogs on leashes in off-leash areas.

Equally entertaining was your pick of the choice cuts of the TAMS dictate while ignoring the rest:

Shared path
(Mostly black bitumen often marked with white centre lines)
The use of shared paths is restricted to non-motorised transport (with the exception of motorised wheelchairs and power assisted pedal cycles). Both pedestrians and cyclists must share the use of these paths. Please respect all users and be prepared to give way to cyclists and pedestrians as necessary. When cycling, warn of your approach by sounding your bell; if you are cycling or walking, keep to the left. Cyclists should pass pedestrians on the right. Cyclists should give way to pedestrians and other users at all times. If you are a pedestrian, keep a look out for cyclists and give them room to pass. Dogs must be on a leash at all times.

http://www.tams.act.gov.au/roads-transport/cycling/cycling_information/road_rules

Nice that you neglected to bold Cyclists should give way to pedestrians and other users at all times.

I think because that was the one bit that was already quoted and she was highlighting the other relevant bits that were missed?

Nice that you neglected to bold Cyclists should give way to pedestrians and other users at all times.

HAHA, yes, just a small oversight….

Dilandach said :

Postalgeek said :

wildturkeycanoe said :

Postalgeek, you obviously have no children. If you think lashing kids together like train cars to prevent drifting onto the wrong side of the track is what should happen, you really need a wake up call into reality. Here is a quote from the TAMS website about shared paths – “Cyclists should give way to pedestrians and other users at all times”. It does not say cyclists have a right to free passage without impediment from toddlers. Next you’ll be wanting dogs on leashes in these leash free areas in case they run out in front of you or walking licenses to be issued after completing a competency test, to see if you can pace a straight line for 10 metres without veering /- 30cm. Walking whilst drunk or under the influence of drugs should be banned as well as talking on a mobile, listening to loud music or whilst engaging in the consumption of food and/or beverages.

Nice straw man, with a subtle hint of hysteria. I liked the bit about wanting dogs on leashes in off-leash areas.

Equally entertaining was your pick of the choice cuts of the TAMS dictate while ignoring the rest:

Shared path
(Mostly black bitumen often marked with white centre lines)
The use of shared paths is restricted to non-motorised transport (with the exception of motorised wheelchairs and power assisted pedal cycles). Both pedestrians and cyclists must share the use of these paths. Please respect all users and be prepared to give way to cyclists and pedestrians as necessary. When cycling, warn of your approach by sounding your bell; if you are cycling or walking, keep to the left. Cyclists should pass pedestrians on the right. Cyclists should give way to pedestrians and other users at all times. If you are a pedestrian, keep a look out for cyclists and give them room to pass. Dogs must be on a leash at all times.

http://www.tams.act.gov.au/roads-transport/cycling/cycling_information/road_rules

Nice that you neglected to bold Cyclists should give way to pedestrians and other users at all times.

the paragraph is basically saying everybody should give way to everybody……regardless of the bolding…..*rolls eyes*

Dilandach said :

Postalgeek said :

I agree that cyclists should be extra careful around kids and animals, and abusing them doesn’t reflect well on the abuser (though ‘abuse’ is in the eye of the beholder).

Yes I have kids and I do not think busy thoroughfares are the best place for them to learn direction and balance.

But hey, if you think your kids should be free to swerve in front of oncoming cyclists, whatever their speed, good for you. Let me know how it works out for you.

Any cyclist that doesn’t give way like they’re supposed to and ends up hitting one of my little ones because they’re riding like a juiced up Armstrong are going to get their bike placed internally via their closest orifice.

* Use your damn bell, I don’t give a shit what excuse you come up with for not having one.
* Give way to pedestrians like you’re supposed to, the pathways aren’t a velodrome.
* Be aware of little kids and don’t be a self righteous jackass that thinks its cyclists first and foremost on the path. Is it really too much to ask to slow down?

Cyclists don’t like the crap that some drivers pull so why do it to pedestrians?

Yeah, I can see now reading back through what I’ve written that I’ve said that cyclists shouldn’t be careful around kids.

I think my only mistake was suggesting that all users abide by the rules and that parents should shoulder some responsibility and endeavour to prevent their kids drifting across shared lanes and causing accidents. But I can understand why that would be offensive to a certain group of people.

Dilandach said :

Nice that you neglected to bold Cyclists should give way to pedestrians and other users at all times.

Wildturkeycanoe already highlighted that section, but if you need things done twice for you here you go:

Cyclists should give way to pedestrians and other users at all times.

Now read the rest of it.

Postalgeek said :

wildturkeycanoe said :

Postalgeek, you obviously have no children. If you think lashing kids together like train cars to prevent drifting onto the wrong side of the track is what should happen, you really need a wake up call into reality. Here is a quote from the TAMS website about shared paths – “Cyclists should give way to pedestrians and other users at all times”. It does not say cyclists have a right to free passage without impediment from toddlers. Next you’ll be wanting dogs on leashes in these leash free areas in case they run out in front of you or walking licenses to be issued after completing a competency test, to see if you can pace a straight line for 10 metres without veering /- 30cm. Walking whilst drunk or under the influence of drugs should be banned as well as talking on a mobile, listening to loud music or whilst engaging in the consumption of food and/or beverages.

Nice straw man, with a subtle hint of hysteria. I liked the bit about wanting dogs on leashes in off-leash areas.

Equally entertaining was your pick of the choice cuts of the TAMS dictate while ignoring the rest:

Shared path
(Mostly black bitumen often marked with white centre lines)
The use of shared paths is restricted to non-motorised transport (with the exception of motorised wheelchairs and power assisted pedal cycles). Both pedestrians and cyclists must share the use of these paths. Please respect all users and be prepared to give way to cyclists and pedestrians as necessary. When cycling, warn of your approach by sounding your bell; if you are cycling or walking, keep to the left. Cyclists should pass pedestrians on the right. Cyclists should give way to pedestrians and other users at all times. If you are a pedestrian, keep a look out for cyclists and give them room to pass. Dogs must be on a leash at all times.

http://www.tams.act.gov.au/roads-transport/cycling/cycling_information/road_rules

Nice that you neglected to bold Cyclists should give way to pedestrians and other users at all times.

Postalgeek said :

I agree that cyclists should be extra careful around kids and animals, and abusing them doesn’t reflect well on the abuser (though ‘abuse’ is in the eye of the beholder).

Yes I have kids and I do not think busy thoroughfares are the best place for them to learn direction and balance.

But hey, if you think your kids should be free to swerve in front of oncoming cyclists, whatever their speed, good for you. Let me know how it works out for you.

Any cyclist that doesn’t give way like they’re supposed to and ends up hitting one of my little ones because they’re riding like a juiced up Armstrong are going to get their bike placed internally via their closest orifice.

* Use your damn bell, I don’t give a shit what excuse you come up with for not having one.
* Give way to pedestrians like you’re supposed to, the pathways aren’t a velodrome.
* Be aware of little kids and don’t be a self righteous jackass that thinks its cyclists first and foremost on the path. Is it really too much to ask to slow down?

Cyclists don’t like the crap that some drivers pull so why do it to pedestrians?

wildturkeycanoe said :

Postalgeek, you obviously have no children. If you think lashing kids together like train cars to prevent drifting onto the wrong side of the track is what should happen, you really need a wake up call into reality. Here is a quote from the TAMS website about shared paths – “Cyclists should give way to pedestrians and other users at all times”. It does not say cyclists have a right to free passage without impediment from toddlers. Next you’ll be wanting dogs on leashes in these leash free areas in case they run out in front of you or walking licenses to be issued after completing a competency test, to see if you can pace a straight line for 10 metres without veering /- 30cm. Walking whilst drunk or under the influence of drugs should be banned as well as talking on a mobile, listening to loud music or whilst engaging in the consumption of food and/or beverages.

Nice straw man, with a subtle hint of hysteria. I liked the bit about wanting dogs on leashes in off-leash areas.

Equally entertaining was your pick of the choice cuts of the TAMS dictate while ignoring the rest:

Shared path
(Mostly black bitumen often marked with white centre lines)
The use of shared paths is restricted to non-motorised transport (with the exception of motorised wheelchairs and power assisted pedal cycles). Both pedestrians and cyclists must share the use of these paths. Please respect all users and be prepared to give way to cyclists and pedestrians as necessary. When cycling, warn of your approach by sounding your bell; if you are cycling or walking, keep to the left. Cyclists should pass pedestrians on the right. Cyclists should give way to pedestrians and other users at all times. If you are a pedestrian, keep a look out for cyclists and give them room to pass. Dogs must be on a leash at all times.

http://www.tams.act.gov.au/roads-transport/cycling/cycling_information/road_rules

KB1971 said :

I just have to say this ….. WHAT AN AWESOME RIDE TO WORK TODAY!!!!
…
and the morning was beautiful. So much better than commuting by car.

+1! It was a nice morning for a ride! I hope all the pedestrians, joggers, motorists and pram pushers are also happy this AM, and not angry with the world! 🙂

Comic_and_Gamer_Nerd said :

Postalgeek said :

Comic_and_Gamer_Nerd said :

To all those basically saying keep your children in line while walking, do you have kids? Do you remember stumbling as a kid. It’s up to a responsible cyclist to identify a child and slow the eff down.

To reiterate my very first sentence:

I agree that cyclists should be extra careful around kids and animals, and abusing them doesn’t reflect well on the abuser (though ‘abuse’ is in the eye of the beholder).

Yes I have kids and I do not think busy thoroughfares are the best place for them to learn direction and balance.

But hey, if you think your kids should be free to swerve in front of oncoming cyclists, whatever their speed, good for you. Let me know how it works out for you.

It’s worked out great so far. We all keep left as much as possible and the cyclists so far have always gone around without issue.

Yep, there’s that keeping left thing working for you. Good to hear.

Comic_and_Gamer_Nerd said :

Baldy said :

Comic_and_Gamer_Nerd said :

Baldy said :

We had an incident with two idiot bikers the other day coming back from the Multicultural Festival. We walking with a pram and there were two other couples nearby.

As we were walking along and taking over the other two prams these idiot bikers rode up and rode between the very small space between our pram and another, knocking both pram sushers aside.

Considering the riders looked like they were both in their late 30 and each had expensive bikes I would have thought a little curtesy would prevail but apparently, bikes have right of way whether it is on the road or the footpath.

Those bike riders are putting themselves and bikes in serious danger if this is true.

Yes. The bikes were in serious danger. That was my only concern at the time as well.

Babies can take care of themselves.

And it is true. I have no interest in making up random stories just to post on Riot Act

You miss my point. I was alluding to that they would try that sort of horrid crap on someone who would break their leg and their bike.

What sort of pos puts a little baby in a pram in danger that way?

Ah. My mistake sorry. I did think that was a strange comment.

Someone who is only thinking of themselves and their goals. Everyone else is just background.

Jim Jones said :

Baldy said :

Otherwise come back with a rebuttle of my statements on the subject matter with opinions/facts of your own.

My ‘opinion’ is you’re full of sh1t. Your ‘opinion’ that cyclists are all crap and show a ‘shocking lack of respect’ is a load of horsesh1t.

You’ve not bothered with any facts, but I can safely say that it is a fact that some dude making sweeping (bollocks) generalisations about an incredibly diverse group of road users isn’t the sparkliest penny in the fountain and has nothing to offer in the way of intelligent debate.

That’s my ‘rebuttle’.

Ooohhh ouch. You got me with your witty comeback.
Thank you for proving my point.
You don’t have any real or intelligent contribution to the conversation so you insult the poster, thus making you feel superior. Hopefully (for you) they won’t respond so you can feel that you argued them down, thus proving your superiority.

Good for you. I can tell your high school debating team were eager to have you on their side.

Now if you please step aside, some of us are trying to have a real conversation.

I just have to say this ….. WHAT AN AWESOME RIDE TO WORK TODAY!!!!

All the car drivers were courteous, all the dog owners had their dogs on leads, all the pedestrians were walking left and not wandering all over the place like a mixo rabbit.

& the morning was beautiful. So much better than commuting by car.

Postalgeek said :

Comic_and_Gamer_Nerd said :

To all those basically saying keep your children in line while walking, do you have kids? Do you remember stumbling as a kid. It’s up to a responsible cyclist to identify a child and slow the eff down.

To reiterate my very first sentence:

I agree that cyclists should be extra careful around kids and animals, and abusing them doesn’t reflect well on the abuser (though ‘abuse’ is in the eye of the beholder).

Yes I have kids and I do not think busy thoroughfares are the best place for them to learn direction and balance.

But hey, if you think your kids should be free to swerve in front of oncoming cyclists, whatever their speed, good for you. Let me know how it works out for you.

It’s worked out great so far. We all keep left as much as possible and the cyclists so far have always gone around without issue.

Postalgeek said :

Comic_and_Gamer_Nerd said :

To all those basically saying keep your children in line while walking, do you have kids? Do you remember stumbling as a kid. It’s up to a responsible cyclist to identify a child and slow the eff down.

To reiterate my very first sentence:

I agree that cyclists should be extra careful around kids and animals, and abusing them doesn’t reflect well on the abuser (though ‘abuse’ is in the eye of the beholder).

Yes I have kids and I do not think busy thoroughfares are the best place for them to learn direction and balance.

But hey, if you think your kids should be free to swerve in front of oncoming cyclists, whatever their speed, good for you. Let me know how it works out for you.

Because a 2 hour session on a quiet footpath is sufficient to learn direction and balance….judging by the number of adult cyclists wobbling all over the roads I’d say its a lifelong learning thing.

It would be nice though if the govt provided facilities specifically designed to teach kids to ride….you know like the one in belconnen that already exists and just needs to mowed and cleaned up and the public allowed access. ARE WE READING THIS KATY?

Postalgeek, you obviously have no children. If you think lashing kids together like train cars to prevent drifting onto the wrong side of the track is what should happen, you really need a wake up call into reality. Here is a quote from the TAMS website about shared paths – “Cyclists should give way to pedestrians and other users at all times”. It does not say cyclists have a right to free passage without impediment from toddlers. Next you’ll be wanting dogs on leashes in these leash free areas in case they run out in front of you or walking licenses to be issued after completing a competency test, to see if you can pace a straight line for 10 metres without veering +/- 30cm. Walking whilst drunk or under the influence of drugs should be banned as well as talking on a mobile, listening to loud music or whilst engaging in the consumption of food and/or beverages.

Comic_and_Gamer_Nerd said :

To all those basically saying keep your children in line while walking, do you have kids? Do you remember stumbling as a kid. It’s up to a responsible cyclist to identify a child and slow the eff down.

To reiterate my very first sentence:

I agree that cyclists should be extra careful around kids and animals, and abusing them doesn’t reflect well on the abuser (though ‘abuse’ is in the eye of the beholder).

Yes I have kids and I do not think busy thoroughfares are the best place for them to learn direction and balance.

But hey, if you think your kids should be free to swerve in front of oncoming cyclists, whatever their speed, good for you. Let me know how it works out for you.

To all those basically saying keep your children in line while walking, do you have kids? Do you remember stumbling as a kid. It’s up to a responsible cyclist to identify a child and slow the eff down.

Deckard said :

Baldy raises one good point. I ride on bike paths everyday and reckon that kids in prams, on bikes or walking get right of way. You can have the us v them mentality or be racing for your strava ranking but when a little kid gets hurt it’s not much fun for anyone.

That said, generalisations piss me off. Whether it’s pedestrians, cyclists, Canberra drivers or people who live in Charnwood, we are all the same. There’s good, there’s indifferent, there’s bad. And maybe we should all sit back and listen to what Rodney King has to say.

I agree that cyclists should be extra careful around kids and animals, and abusing them doesn’t reflect well on the abuser (though ‘abuse’ is in the eye of the beholder).

Having said that, guardians need a good kick up the backside if they treat a shared path like a park and let their wards drift erratically. There are plenty of places to let a child ‘off the leash’, but a narrow shared path or cycleway is not one of them, any more than a road is a suitable place. It’s dangerous for other users and exceptionally dangerous for kids who are going to have the laws of physics stacked against them in a collision with an adult cyclist.

Any user of a shared path should behave as they would on a road, acting predictably and being aware of their surrounds, giving other users space, not occupying the lane of oncoming traffic, staying left to allow faster traffic to pass, and passing safely (no need to point out that there are plenty of people who don’t behave like this on the road).

Jim Jones said :

Baldy said :

Otherwise come back with a rebuttle of my statements on the subject matter with opinions/facts of your own.

My ‘opinion’ is you’re full of sh1t. Your ‘opinion’ that cyclists are all crap and show a ‘shocking lack of respect’ is a load of horsesh1t.

You’ve not bothered with any facts, but I can safely say that it is a fact that some dude making sweeping (bollocks) generalisations about an incredibly diverse group of road users isn’t the sparkliest penny in the fountain and has nothing to offer in the way of intelligent debate.

That’s my ‘rebuttle’.

Good to see you picked up on that Malapropism there Jim. As we all know, rebuttling actually occurs in the situation where your butler fails at some task, and you ask him to come back and correct the situation. For example, “Jeeves, there’s not enough Gin in this G&T. Please rebuttle it”. 🙂

GardeningGirl said :

Grail said :

I do not dismount for crossings. When driving, I stop to allow mounted cyclists to cross. Similarly, I do not complain when a pub doesn’t have dry straw to accommodate my horse. Some laws make no sense, so there is no point obeying them. Sure, I will get arrested some day. But I will deal with that when it happens. In the meantime I fund lobbying to have that useless law repealed.

Does anyone know the purpose of the rule? If someone approaches at a speed and direction that ensures I have time to see them, and if they are not impeding anyone else’s use of the crossing, I really don’t care if they walk or ride or tango their way across. Is the dismount rule meant to simply slow them down?

The purpose of the rule is that too many half witted cyclists zoom across crossings at speed without even looking.

It’s sad that a dumb rule like this is even in play when most cyclists I see do go as slow as the pedestrians, but the amount of times I have nearly hit no looking speeding cyclists on crossings is ridiculous.

Baldy raises one good point. I ride on bike paths everyday and reckon that kids in prams, on bikes or walking get right of way. You can have the us v them mentality or be racing for your strava ranking but when a little kid gets hurt it’s not much fun for anyone.

That said, generalisations piss me off. Whether it’s pedestrians, cyclists, Canberra drivers or people who live in Charnwood, we are all the same. There’s good, there’s indifferent, there’s bad. And maybe we should all sit back and listen to what Rodney King has to say.

Baldy said :

Comic_and_Gamer_Nerd said :

Baldy said :

We had an incident with two idiot bikers the other day coming back from the Multicultural Festival. We walking with a pram and there were two other couples nearby.

As we were walking along and taking over the other two prams these idiot bikers rode up and rode between the very small space between our pram and another, knocking both pram sushers aside.

Considering the riders looked like they were both in their late 30 and each had expensive bikes I would have thought a little curtesy would prevail but apparently, bikes have right of way whether it is on the road or the footpath.

Those bike riders are putting themselves and bikes in serious danger if this is true.

Yes. The bikes were in serious danger. That was my only concern at the time as well.

Babies can take care of themselves.

And it is true. I have no interest in making up random stories just to post on Riot Act

You miss my point. I was alluding to that they would try that sort of horrid crap on someone who would break their leg and their bike.

What sort of pos puts a little baby in a pram in danger that way?

Jethro said :

This

Well, sadly for Mr King he died alone at the bottom of a swimming pool. Appears he didn’t practice what he preached.

Grail said :

I ride a bike. …
I do not dismount for crossings. When driving, I stop to allow mounted cyclists to cross. ….

I always get off and walk, slowly across, when cars are about.

Jethro said :

This

You sir, are the best.

Baldy said :

Otherwise come back with a rebuttle of my statements on the subject matter with opinions/facts of your own.

My ‘opinion’ is you’re full of sh1t. Your ‘opinion’ that cyclists are all crap and show a ‘shocking lack of respect’ is a load of horsesh1t.

You’ve not bothered with any facts, but I can safely say that it is a fact that some dude making sweeping (bollocks) generalisations about an incredibly diverse group of road users isn’t the sparkliest penny in the fountain and has nothing to offer in the way of intelligent debate.

That’s my ‘rebuttle’.

This

Grail said :

I do not dismount for crossings. When driving, I stop to allow mounted cyclists to cross. Similarly, I do not complain when a pub doesn’t have dry straw to accommodate my horse. Some laws make no sense, so there is no point obeying them. Sure, I will get arrested some day. But I will deal with that when it happens. In the meantime I fund lobbying to have that useless law repealed.

Does anyone know the purpose of the rule? If someone approaches at a speed and direction that ensures I have time to see them, and if they are not impeding anyone else’s use of the crossing, I really don’t care if they walk or ride or tango their way across. Is the dismount rule meant to simply slow them down?

I ride a bike. It has a bell. I always ring it five to ten seconds ahead of passing anyone slower than me. Sure, people scramble but that is because they panic about everything, not my problem. Sure, people do nothing. If they are in my way that is my problem, and I rectify it by getting out of their way as I pass.

Sometimes people lose their temper in public. The armchair moralists of The RiotACT obviously never lose their cool in public (probably because they never leave their mothers’ basements). For the rest of the world the usual way to handle the situation is to accept that someone is angry, and work from there.

Some people will always be rude in public: they have the attitude that they paid for this road, or this is their footpath, this is their lane, you are going too slow, or in some way are entitled to private occupation of public property. This is Sturgeon’s Law at work. Sensible people accept the situation as extant, and work from there.

I do not dismount for crossings. When driving, I stop to allow mounted cyclists to cross. Similarly, I do not complain when a pub doesn’t have dry straw to accommodate my horse. Some laws make no sense, so there is no point obeying them. Sure, I will get arrested some day. But I will deal with that when it happens. In the meantime I fund lobbying to have that useless law repealed.

But I do have a bell on my bike so I can warn people that I am approaching them. How they react to my approach is not my problem. If they panic because they were woken from a daydream then I consider that a civic benefit. Not my problem to worry about, and maybe I saved them from running under a bus.

Jim Jones said :

Ghettosmurf87 said :

Baldy said :

We had an incident with two idiot bikers the other day coming back from the Multicultural Festival. We walking with a pram and there were two other couples nearby.

As we were walking along and taking over the other two prams these idiot bikers rode up and rode between the very small space between our pram and another, knocking both pram sushers aside.

Considering the riders looked like they were both in their late 30 and each had expensive bikes I would have thought a little curtesy would prevail but apparently, bikes have right of way whether it is on the road or the footpath.

Because the behaviour of 2 bike-riders is indicative of all bike-riders and how they adhere to both the law and general social interactions? The story was a good example of the bad behaviour of some people in our society and could have been linked to a general lack of empathy and common courtesy in today’s society…. until the sweeping generalisation at the end.

+1

That post showed a hell of a lot more about the person who posted it than the cyclists in question.

Yes. It shows that I’m concerned that the standard of respect that cyclist have in this town for pedestrians is sadly falling.

Or would you prefer me instead of making generalisations (which I admit it is, but an accurate one in my opinion) would you prefer me t find out and name everyone who breaks the law or shows the shocking lack of said respect.

Seriously mate. If you can’t add anything to the conversation other than “ohh I don’t have anything to add so I’ll insult the poster,” maybe you should just stay out of it.

Otherwise come back with a rebuttle of my statements on the subject matter with opinions/facts of your own.

Ghettosmurf87 said :

Baldy said :

We had an incident with two idiot bikers the other day coming back from the Multicultural Festival. We walking with a pram and there were two other couples nearby.

As we were walking along and taking over the other two prams these idiot bikers rode up and rode between the very small space between our pram and another, knocking both pram sushers aside.

Considering the riders looked like they were both in their late 30 and each had expensive bikes I would have thought a little curtesy would prevail but apparently, bikes have right of way whether it is on the road or the footpath.

Because the behaviour of 2 bike-riders is indicative of all bike-riders and how they adhere to both the law and general social interactions? The story was a good example of the bad behaviour of some people in our society and could have been linked to a general lack of empathy and common courtesy in today’s society…. until the sweeping generalisation at the end.

No. The sweeping generaliations come from other observations, like how bike riders will cluster at pedestrian crossing and cross en mass in the centre without a thought of the pedestrian. There are other examples and if you want to know what they are walk down a footpath one day.

By the way, that last is illegal. The law says you must get off your bike and walk across.

BTW this is not a bike bashing. I ride. I just have a lot more respect for other users of paths as well.

Ghettosmurf87 said :

Baldy said :

We had an incident with two idiot bikers the other day coming back from the Multicultural Festival. We walking with a pram and there were two other couples nearby.

As we were walking along and taking over the other two prams these idiot bikers rode up and rode between the very small space between our pram and another, knocking both pram sushers aside.

Considering the riders looked like they were both in their late 30 and each had expensive bikes I would have thought a little curtesy would prevail but apparently, bikes have right of way whether it is on the road or the footpath.

Because the behaviour of 2 bike-riders is indicative of all bike-riders and how they adhere to both the law and general social interactions? The story was a good example of the bad behaviour of some people in our society and could have been linked to a general lack of empathy and common courtesy in today’s society…. until the sweeping generalisation at the end.

+1

That post showed a hell of a lot more about the person who posted it than the cyclists in question.

Comic_and_Gamer_Nerd said :

Baldy said :

We had an incident with two idiot bikers the other day coming back from the Multicultural Festival. We walking with a pram and there were two other couples nearby.

As we were walking along and taking over the other two prams these idiot bikers rode up and rode between the very small space between our pram and another, knocking both pram sushers aside.

Considering the riders looked like they were both in their late 30 and each had expensive bikes I would have thought a little curtesy would prevail but apparently, bikes have right of way whether it is on the road or the footpath.

Those bike riders are putting themselves and bikes in serious danger if this is true.

Yes. The bikes were in serious danger. That was my only concern at the time as well.

Babies can take care of themselves.

And it is true. I have no interest in making up random stories just to post on Riot Act

Baldy said :

We had an incident with two idiot bikers the other day coming back from the Multicultural Festival. We walking with a pram and there were two other couples nearby.

As we were walking along and taking over the other two prams these idiot bikers rode up and rode between the very small space between our pram and another, knocking both pram sushers aside.

Considering the riders looked like they were both in their late 30 and each had expensive bikes I would have thought a little curtesy would prevail but apparently, bikes have right of way whether it is on the road or the footpath.

Because the behaviour of 2 bike-riders is indicative of all bike-riders and how they adhere to both the law and general social interactions? The story was a good example of the bad behaviour of some people in our society and could have been linked to a general lack of empathy and common courtesy in today’s society…. until the sweeping generalisation at the end.

Baldy said :

We had an incident with two idiot bikers the other day coming back from the Multicultural Festival. We walking with a pram and there were two other couples nearby.

As we were walking along and taking over the other two prams these idiot bikers rode up and rode between the very small space between our pram and another, knocking both pram sushers aside.

Considering the riders looked like they were both in their late 30 and each had expensive bikes I would have thought a little curtesy would prevail but apparently, bikes have right of way whether it is on the road or the footpath.

Those bike riders are putting themselves and bikes in serious danger if this is true.

We had an incident with two idiot bikers the other day coming back from the Multicultural Festival. We walking with a pram and there were two other couples nearby.

As we were walking along and taking over the other two prams these idiot bikers rode up and rode between the very small space between our pram and another, knocking both pram sushers aside.

Considering the riders looked like they were both in their late 30 and each had expensive bikes I would have thought a little curtesy would prevail but apparently, bikes have right of way whether it is on the road or the footpath.

gungsuperstar said :

I’m a fairly new cyclist okay – you might not have read the other threads about cyclists even on this website.

Tell me, is there a single person out there for whom this is true? Does anyone know anyone who doesn’t recognise a bike bell sound, or who is offended by it? .

Yes, multiple people multiple times. I’ve had the “I don’t have to get out of your effing way”. err – no, I wasn’t expecting you to, I was just letting you know I was approaching so i didn’t frighten you.

Read some of the other cyclist threads on here and you’ll see that time and time again a bell has been misunderstood.

For the record, I ding about 15 metres back, and then call bike coming. If there are still people waddling like brown cows all over both side of a track I will ding again and hope they move left. Mind you, all the young ipod people who are in a world of their own still have a heart attack despite the above.

Comic_and_Gamer_Nerd said :

KB1971 said :

Visitor01Q said :

Quite frankly if we have tossers out there that think that a child, who inadvertently swerves in front of someone who hasn’t bothered to identify that they are there is worthy of abuse and that believe that only those on foot have to show any common courtesy at all then that shows that we clearly have an issue that needs to be policed (and when I say policed, I don’t necessarily mean by the police force, in this instance the rangers may well be more appropriate).

d.

So you did do something to cause the rider to get upset?

It may not have been intentional, I get that but do you think that maybe, just maybe your child accidentally walking in front of him scared the crap out of him & the crankyness was his flight or fight reaction?

You dont know, in the last 1/2 an hour he may have nearly been hit by a couple of cars, chased by a dog and had a flat tyre.

You never know what is going on in peoples lives to cause such a reaction over a small event.

A friend of mine committed suicide a week ago, a shock and the grief of an event like that can cause people to do silly things.

Then again, he could have been just an arsehole and TBH you are sort of displaying the same personality traits. Just let it go. Life goes on.

Makes no difference bro. There is never any excuse to act that way in front of a child.

+1. It’s just not good enough.

wildturkeycanoe said :

Yes, I was on a bike, I am quite regularly. Surprised people? I can understand why you wouldn’t believe me though.

You are funny….. 🙂

Just to clarify a point I didn’t convey correctly before, when I was overtaking the pedestrians I rang the bell from about 20 metres behind them, not while I was passing. I gave plenty of warning only to see them scramble to get out of my way, which was not my intention. I give a wide berth when going around, so that little ones might not suddenly jump out in front of me, as they are sometimes unpredictable.
Yes, I was on a bike, I am quite regularly. Surprised people? I can understand why you wouldn’t believe me though.

Oh gawd, sorry for the quoting stuff up.

screaming banshee said :

wildturkeycanoe said :

I felt like a twit, even though I was already on the grass overtaking them prior to ringing.

Try ringing your bell a little earlier next time.

You are missing out on the big picture here Banshee………WILDTURKEYCANOE WAS ON A BIKE!!!

Visitor01Q said :

KB1971 said :

Visitor01Q said :

Quite frankly if we have tossers out there that think that a child, who inadvertently swerves in front of someone who hasn’t bothered to identify that they are there is worthy of abuse and that believe that only those on foot have to show any common courtesy at all then that shows that we clearly have an issue that needs to be policed (and when I say policed, I don’t necessarily mean by the police force, in this instance the rangers may well be more appropriate).

d.

So you did do something to cause the rider to get upset?

In his mind, yes.

It may not have been intentional, I get that but do you think that maybe, just maybe your child accidentally walking in front of him scared the crap out of him & the crankyness was his flight or fight reaction?

Nope, neither I nor my daughter were in his way. We were on the footpath (not a shared cycleway as far as I can ascertain but I could be wrong) and we were walking / scooting.

Had a bike been coming up behind us, then it would be reasonable for me to expect a warning in which case we would have ensured there was sufficient space for the cyclist. As the cyclist chose not to warn us, then we were well within our rights to be where we were (which in reality was on the left 1/2 of the footpath anyway).

You dont know, in the last 1/2 an hour he may have nearly been hit by a couple of cars, chased by a dog and had a flat tyre.

and he doesn’t know that in the last 1/2 hour I may have nearly been hit by a couple of cars / bikes, chased by a dog and had a blowout on a shoe .. what’s your point?

You never know what is going on in peoples lives to cause such a reaction over a small event.

No, I don’t. However, it’s not relevant or appropriate to take out anger on others whether we know them or not. That’s not what reasonable adults do.

A friend of mine committed suicide a week ago, a shock and the grief of an event like that can cause people to do silly things.

While I understand, I do not agree that these excuses are justifications for poor behaviour towards others.

Then again, he could have been just an arsehole and TBH you are sort of displaying the same personality traits. Just let it go. Life goes on.

Given he had a go at us today as well, as a carry on from yesterday (no kid to threaten today so he was just rude as he rode past) he is clearly an arsehole and if he tries it again tomorrow i’ll stop him, get his details and report him to the authorities.

Visitor01Q said :

KB1971 said :

Visitor01Q said :

Quite frankly if we have tossers out there that think that a child, who inadvertently swerves in front of someone who hasn’t bothered to identify that they are there is worthy of abuse and that believe that only those on foot have to show any common courtesy at all then that shows that we clearly have an issue that needs to be policed (and when I say policed, I don’t necessarily mean by the police force, in this instance the rangers may well be more appropriate).

d.

So you did do something to cause the rider to get upset?

In his mind, yes.

It may not have been intentional, I get that but do you think that maybe, just maybe your child accidentally walking in front of him scared the crap out of him & the crankyness was his flight or fight reaction?

Nope, neither I nor my daughter were in his way. We were on the footpath (not a shared cycleway as far as I can ascertain but I could be wrong) and we were walking / scooting.

Had a bike been coming up behind us, then it would be reasonable for me to expect a warning in which case we would have ensured there was sufficient space for the cyclist. As the cyclist chose not to warn us, then we were well within our rights to be where we were (which in reality was on the left 1/2 of the footpath anyway).

You dont know, in the last 1/2 an hour he may have nearly been hit by a couple of cars, chased by a dog and had a flat tyre.

and he doesn’t know that in the last 1/2 hour I may have nearly been hit by a couple of cars / bikes, chased by a dog and had a blowout on a shoe .. what’s your point?

You never know what is going on in peoples lives to cause such a reaction over a small event.

No, I don’t. However, it’s not relevant or appropriate to take out anger on others whether we know them or not. That’s not what reasonable adults do.

A friend of mine committed suicide a week ago, a shock and the grief of an event like that can cause people to do silly things.

While I understand, I do not agree that these excuses are justifications for poor behaviour towards others.

Then again, he could have been just an arsehole and TBH you are sort of displaying the same personality traits. Just let it go. Life goes on.

Given he had a go at us today as well, as a carry on from yesterday (no kid to threaten today so he was just rude as he rode past) he is clearly an arsehole and if he tries it again tomorrow i’ll stop him, get his details and report him to the authorities.

You really are no different to him, you are not accepting any part in the fracas but you have admitted that your daughter did sway in her path.

You said that you were walking on Commonwealth Avenue Bridge? Is this correct? That is a shared path. The only path is not that I know of between the two bridges is the one on the southern side of the lake right on the bank that goes from the Gallery to Lennox Gardens, the one set back from the bank is the shared path.
Yep, he did not warn you but as a pedestrian you have a responsibility to keep left, you say it’s reasonable for you to expect a bell, well its reasonable for him to expect you keep left no matter what.
My point about the history is that he may already be upset about something in his day and your incident was the catalyst.
I agree it’s not appropriate to take out your anger on someone else but you know; that’s life sometimes. I bet you have gone off at some poor checkout chick or someone driving down the road at some stage in your life. It happens.
You think I am making excuses? No I am just trying to give you a perspective from a different point of view but your pride and arrogance is not letting you accept it.

Lastly, I don’t believe he abused you on his own, it takes two to tango and the way you are posting here leads me to believe you may have had a go at him at some stage, either when he went past or when he said something to you.

Girt_Hindrance said :

[
I hope you’re doing okay in regards to your friend, and you raise an exceptionally valid point about personal circumstance. People rarely allow for what others may be going through when they start getting offended about this ridiculously small stuff.

Yeah, all good thanks. She was a riding buddy and we have all come together to help each other through it.

I ride with a great bunch of people.

KB1971 said :

Visitor01Q said :

Quite frankly if we have tossers out there that think that a child, who inadvertently swerves in front of someone who hasn’t bothered to identify that they are there is worthy of abuse and that believe that only those on foot have to show any common courtesy at all then that shows that we clearly have an issue that needs to be policed (and when I say policed, I don’t necessarily mean by the police force, in this instance the rangers may well be more appropriate).

d.

So you did do something to cause the rider to get upset?

It may not have been intentional, I get that but do you think that maybe, just maybe your child accidentally walking in front of him scared the crap out of him & the crankyness was his flight or fight reaction?

You dont know, in the last 1/2 an hour he may have nearly been hit by a couple of cars, chased by a dog and had a flat tyre.

You never know what is going on in peoples lives to cause such a reaction over a small event.

A friend of mine committed suicide a week ago, a shock and the grief of an event like that can cause people to do silly things.

Then again, he could have been just an arsehole and TBH you are sort of displaying the same personality traits. Just let it go. Life goes on.

Makes no difference bro. There is never any excuse to act that way in front of a child.

OpenYourMind said :

Just keep left, keep your dog on a leash to the left and keep your kids to your left and the problem is solved. Us sexy cyclists with our bulging calves in our hot lycra and bicycles more expensive than your car have no desire to crack our precious carbon fibre frames on your slowly ambling body.

Where are these sexy cyclists of which you speak?

KB1971 said :

Visitor01Q said :

Quite frankly if we have tossers out there that think that a child, who inadvertently swerves in front of someone who hasn’t bothered to identify that they are there is worthy of abuse and that believe that only those on foot have to show any common courtesy at all then that shows that we clearly have an issue that needs to be policed (and when I say policed, I don’t necessarily mean by the police force, in this instance the rangers may well be more appropriate).

d.

So you did do something to cause the rider to get upset?

In his mind, yes.

It may not have been intentional, I get that but do you think that maybe, just maybe your child accidentally walking in front of him scared the crap out of him & the crankyness was his flight or fight reaction?

Nope, neither I nor my daughter were in his way. We were on the footpath (not a shared cycleway as far as I can ascertain but I could be wrong) and we were walking / scooting. Had a bike been coming up behind us, then it would be reasonable for me to expect a warning in which case we would have ensured there was sufficient space for the cyclist. As the cyclist chose not to warn us, then we were well within our rights to be where we were (which in reality was on the left 1/2 of the footpath anyway).

You dont know, in the last 1/2 an hour he may have nearly been hit by a couple of cars, chased by a dog and had a flat tyre.

and he doesn’t know that in the last 1/2 hour I may have nearly been hit by a couple of cars / bikes, chased by a dog and had a blowout on a shoe .. what’s your point?

You never know what is going on in peoples lives to cause such a reaction over a small event.

No, I don’t. However, it’s not relevant or appropriate to take out anger on others whether we know them or not. That’s not what reasonable adults do.

A friend of mine committed suicide a week ago, a shock and the grief of an event like that can cause people to do silly things.

While I understand, I do not agree that these excuses are justifications for poor behaviour towards others.

Then again, he could have been just an arsehole and TBH you are sort of displaying the same personality traits. Just let it go. Life goes on.

Given he had a go at us today as well, as a carry on from yesterday (no kid to threaten today so he was just rude as he rode past) he is clearly an arsehole and if he tries it again tomorrow i’ll stop him, get his details and report him to the authorities.

wildturkeycanoe said :

I rang my bell as I approached from behind a parent and her children. I regret doing so now after the look of horror and panicked scrambling to get off the path and onto the grass. I felt like a twit, even though I was already on the grass overtaking them prior to ringing.
I won’t be ringin’ it ever again if I cause such trauma to the person who is at no risk of being injured in the first place.
I’m glad they veered left to, or it could have been worse….
Next headline – “Bike bell causes multiple injuries, cyclists asked to warn pedestrians that they are about to ring their bell”.

Then you failed to give them sufficient warning, and what you have presented is an excuse, not a justification.

KB1971 said :

Visitor01Q said :

Quite frankly if we have tossers out there that think that a child, who inadvertently swerves in front of someone who hasn’t bothered to identify that they are there is worthy of abuse and that believe that only those on foot have to show any common courtesy at all then that shows that we clearly have an issue that needs to be policed (and when I say policed, I don’t necessarily mean by the police force, in this instance the rangers may well be more appropriate).

d.

So you did do something to cause the rider to get upset?

It may not have been intentional, I get that but do you think that maybe, just maybe your child accidentally walking in front of him scared the crap out of him & the crankyness was his flight or fight reaction?

You dont know, in the last 1/2 an hour he may have nearly been hit by a couple of cars, chased by a dog and had a flat tyre.

You never know what is going on in peoples lives to cause such a reaction over a small event.

A friend of mine committed suicide a week ago, a shock and the grief of an event like that can cause people to do silly things.

Then again, he could have been just an arsehole and TBH you are sort of displaying the same personality traits. Just let it go. Life goes on.

I hope you’re doing okay in regards to your friend, and you raise an exceptionally valid point about personal circumstance. People rarely allow for what others may be going through when they start getting offended about this ridiculously small stuff.

Just keep left, keep your dog on a leash to the left and keep your kids to your left and the problem is solved. Us sexy cyclists with our bulging calves in our hot lycra and bicycles more expensive than your car have no desire to crack our precious carbon fibre frames on your slowly ambling body.

wildturkeycanoe said :

I felt like a twit, even though I was already on the grass overtaking them prior to ringing.

Try ringing your bell a little earlier next time.

Visitor01Q said :

Quite frankly if we have tossers out there that think that a child, who inadvertently swerves in front of someone who hasn’t bothered to identify that they are there is worthy of abuse and that believe that only those on foot have to show any common courtesy at all then that shows that we clearly have an issue that needs to be policed (and when I say policed, I don’t necessarily mean by the police force, in this instance the rangers may well be more appropriate).

d.

So you did do something to cause the rider to get upset?

It may not have been intentional, I get that but do you think that maybe, just maybe your child accidentally walking in front of him scared the crap out of him & the crankyness was his flight or fight reaction?

You dont know, in the last 1/2 an hour he may have nearly been hit by a couple of cars, chased by a dog and had a flat tyre.

You never know what is going on in peoples lives to cause such a reaction over a small event.

A friend of mine committed suicide a week ago, a shock and the grief of an event like that can cause people to do silly things.

Then again, he could have been just an arsehole and TBH you are sort of displaying the same personality traits. Just let it go. Life goes on.

I rang my bell as I approached from behind a parent and her children. I regret doing so now after the look of horror and panicked scrambling to get off the path and onto the grass. I felt like a twit, even though I was already on the grass overtaking them prior to ringing.
I won’t be ringin’ it ever again if I cause such trauma to the person who is at no risk of being injured in the first place.
I’m glad they veered left to, or it could have been worse….
Next headline – “Bike bell causes multiple injuries, cyclists asked to warn pedestrians that they are about to ring their bell”.

gungsuperstar said :

Tell me, is there a single person out there for whom this is true? Does anyone know anyone who doesn’t recognise a bike bell sound, or who is offended by it? The reason I’m on this crusade is for instances exactly like many mentioned in these comments – the actions of a couple of rogues cause you to loathe all cyclists, including cyclists like me who “ding” you and slow right down to go past you.

I am not concerned about the bell, or the “bike” or “bike on the right”, as long as I have enough notice I will make sure that i’m on the left and they can go on the right. I don’t get why it’s not feasible to warn pedestrians, and quite frankly all i’m seeing is excuses, not justifications.

gungsuperstar said :

I’m a fairly new cyclist who has been on a campaign to educate far more experienced riders on the road about the need for a bell. Some of the ideas I hear are preposterous, including the suggestion that pedestrians don’t recognise the sound, or they take offence to the sound (as opposed to someone yelling at them).

Tell me, is there a single person out there for whom this is true? Does anyone know anyone who doesn’t recognise a bike bell sound, or who is offended by it? The reason I’m on this crusade is for instances exactly like many mentioned in these comments – the actions of a couple of rogues cause you to loathe all cyclists, including cyclists like me who “ding” you and slow right down to go past you.

I’ve heard opinions about what is easier to hear and to locate directionwise. Once or twice I’ve looked for a bike because of a bike bell type sound and it was something else. Perhaps voice works better, but I’m not sure? I just appreciate the effort to do any warning whether it is bell or voice. I appreciate cyclists slowing down but if I am given enough time and space to move right over I don’t mind the cyclist going fast, for all I know they might have their reasons for maintaining a consistent fast pace. If it’s a voice warning I keep an open mind to the possibility that it sounds gruffer than intended due to the physical exertion. I keep or move to the left. If the source is unclear I try to look around and identify the source without making any sudden or unpredictable changes in my position or direction. Anyway, that’s me, hope I’ve explained myself clearly. Thank you for caring about the matter. I don’t loathe all cyclists at all but it’s true to say I have developed a wariness. I hope you enjoy your cycling. I did many years ago, many many years ago, it was a fun way to get around and good for fitness.

OpenYourMind said :

From what I’ve seen, the people that bitch about lack of warning are usually the ones meandering all over the path. If you keep left, keep your dog on a leash to your left and keep your kids closely monitored and to the left (and yes, I have kids) then it shouldn’t matter to you whether a cyclist uses a bell or not. By the same token, it’s a responsibility of us cyclists to warn other path users of our approach and slow down if there’s a potential danger ahead such as kids/pets/horses.

I can picture from behind Mr Garden and me would be a meandering obstruction when walking together but how hard is it to do us the courtesy of giving us the opportunity to move over, which we are happy to do? Even when I’m alone and keeping left how hard is it to do me the courtesy of warning of your approach before you whoosh past like a swooping magpie? How hard is it all????? We keep having these threads. 🙁
Oh forget it! I’ll be the weird chick wearing the homemade contraption on my head with rear view mirrors and a heads up display of a radar sweep of my perimeter. 🙂

I’m a fairly new cyclist who has been on a campaign to educate far more experienced riders on the road about the need for a bell. Some of the ideas I hear are preposterous, including the suggestion that pedestrians don’t recognise the sound, or they take offence to the sound (as opposed to someone yelling at them).

Tell me, is there a single person out there for whom this is true? Does anyone know anyone who doesn’t recognise a bike bell sound, or who is offended by it? The reason I’m on this crusade is for instances exactly like many mentioned in these comments – the actions of a couple of rogues cause you to loathe all cyclists, including cyclists like me who “ding” you and slow right down to go past you.

tim_c said :

Do you sound your car horn before attempting to overtake anyone while you’re driving?
Most pedestrians have worked out that it’s not too difficult to SHARE the cycleways and if they don’t take up the whole width (though some obviously can’t help it), cyclists can still pass without even needing to ring a bell.

Not the same. Vehicle overtaking vehicle has marked separate lanes and the overtakee has mirrors to help awareness of traffic coming from behind. Bike overtaking pedestrian is a more vague manoeuvre and I can tell you it can be more like being swooped by a magpie when the first you know of a fast moving cyclist’s presence is the whoosh just behind your shoulder.

I don’t know why everyone can’t share. If I’m walking with someone and having a conversation I prefer to do it side by side rather than shouting at each other single file, but if I hear a bell or friendly shout I’m happy to move over. What is so hard about that, for cyclists or pedestrians, really?????

Visitor01Q said :

Ezy said :

Visitor01Q said :

you have convinced me to start working at getting the government to police the bike laws and the nca to set speed limits for bikes.

As pedestrians we need to leave 1/2 the space for the bikes, as for the bikes, ring your damn bell, yell “bike” of whatever you’re comfortable with but do it, and respect the fact that sometimes children are unpredictable and no one (NO ONE) has a right to abuse children.

For that alone, this tosser is lucky we didn’t report him to the police as the people at TAMS and the NCA suggested.

To be honest, i would have done far more than that if anyone ever did anything liek that around my kids.

If you see a child, dog or old person slow the hell down, it really is that basic. Be the got ham adult instead of the big baby.

carnardly said :

Postalgeek said :

[, exactly how do we make sure there is enough room for them to pass?

There are signs at either end of CW bridge indicating to stay left.

That’s a start.

I apply the rule of halves. I make sure that when we walk, we never take more than 1/2 the allocated space. That leaves more than enough room for a bike to go past. Except that little flat bike (the guy who abused us), he apparently expects more room and for us to magically know he’s there and give it to him. I personally think he’d have more success if he rang his bell, we’d look behind and see him and move over.

Ezy said :

Visitor01Q said :

you have convinced me to start working at getting the government to police the bike laws and the nca to set speed limits for bikes.

Yup – take the police focus off things like drug related crime and get them on the bike paths to dish out petty fines! Good going.

The authorities choose what is and isn’t valid to pursue. Quite frankly if we have tossers out there that think that a child, who inadvertently swerves in front of someone who hasn’t bothered to identify that they are there is worthy of abuse and that believe that only those on foot have to show any common courtesy at all then that shows that we clearly have an issue that needs to be policed (and when I say policed, I don’t necessarily mean by the police force, in this instance the rangers may well be more appropriate).

Additionally, I don’t believe that all the space around the parliamentary triangle constitutes “shared space” and if the space is not “shared” then bikes need to give way to pedestrians at all times when on footpaths.

All this angst because a few arrogant tossers think the world belongs to them. Interesting really as we could all get along if we all showed a little common courtesy.

I haven’t read every post in here, but all it is is people being so precious. All over the world in under developed countries and major cities – cyclists, vehicles and pedestrians co exist without this bullshit that keeps coming up on RiotAct. So much hate on cyclists for no reason at all.

Then take the time to read the comments, because quite frankly the majority of hate here is the selfish bike riders who think they own the footpath. The voice of reason (ie, the cyclists that show courtesy) is drowned out by the tossers, and there are plenty of decent cyclists out there. Today while walking the lake I noted 2 (out of at least 50) cyclists who warned of their approach, that’s 96% who didn’t bother. Apparently, according to some intellectual giants we need to walk continually circling to make sure we know what’s behind us and in front of us .. the most ludicrous example of selfishness that i’ve heard in a while.

In the morning on my 30km commute to work on roads, firetrail and bike paths , I give a polite ‘morning’ when approaching pedestrians. It lets them know that there is someone approaching and that I am being polite. I also have a bell which I use… I give it a nice single ‘ding’ when I am approaching walkers. But 80% of the time – the walkers have headphones in or are on the mobile phone.

80%? I walked around the lake today and 2 joggers had headphones, all walkers had a ‘morning’ or ‘hello’ as they walked past us. Not a single cyclist acknoweldged our existence other than the 2 who rang their bells even though we said “thank you” as they cycled past. We did however get more rudeness from the guy from yesterday and if I see him tomorrow I will stop him and have a harsher word to him.

Vehicles / Cyclists and Pedestrians coexist. It’s not that hard people!

I agree. As pedestrians we need to leave 1/2 the space for the bikes, as for the bikes, ring your damn bell, yell “bike” of whatever you’re comfortable with but do it, and respect the fact that sometimes children are unpredictable and no one (NO ONE) has a right to abuse children. For that alone, this tosser is lucky we didn’t report him to the police as the people at TAMS and the NCA suggested.

I’M A CYCLIST! OUT OF MY WAY!

Do you sound your car horn before attempting to overtake anyone while you’re driving?
Most pedestrians have worked out that it’s not too difficult to SHARE the cycleways and if they don’t take up the whole width (though some obviously can’t help it), cyclists can still pass without even needing to ring a bell.

Visitor01Q said :

you have convinced me to start working at getting the government to police the bike laws and the nca to set speed limits for bikes.

Yup – take the police focus off things like drug related crime and get them on the bike paths to dish out petty fines! Good going.

I haven’t read every post in here, but all it is is people being so precious. All over the world in under developed countries and major cities – cyclists, vehicles and pedestrians co exist without this bullshit that keeps coming up on RiotAct. So much hate on cyclists for no reason at all.

In the morning on my 30km commute to work on roads, firetrail and bike paths , I give a polite ‘morning’ when approaching pedestrians. It lets them know that there is someone approaching and that I am being polite. I also have a bell which I use… I give it a nice single ‘ding’ when I am approaching walkers. But 80% of the time – the walkers have headphones in or are on the mobile phone.

Vehicles / Cyclists and Pedestrians coexist. It’s not that hard people!

Visitor01Q said :

A courteous respondent wouldn’t make assumptions about my location.

We, the walkers, were
Most definitely on the left hand side, the twat simply wanted more room and any reasonable thinking adult would understand that children do tend to wobble.

Additionally, any auggestion that i should look backwards while walking is simply ludicroud.

Thanks for your snide comment, you have convinced me to start working at getting the government to police the bike laws and the nca to set speed limits for bikes.

Yeah, knock yourself out with the policing thing.

You asked “how do we make sure there is enough room for them to pass? “. There’s enough room for parties to pass on Commonwealth Bridge unless someone is using up more than half the path or two parties create a pinch point for a third.

I commented that that pedestrians and cyclists need to behave courteously. If you were being courteous, then it doesn’t apply to you, does it? If the bike was discourteous, a pox on him.

As for looking backwards, if you think that is ludicrous, that’s your call. I do it all the time when my kid is on a bike on a shared path.

Visitor01Q said :

A courteous respondent wouldn’t make assumptions about my location.

We, the walkers, were
Most definitely on the left hand side, the twat simply wanted more room and any reasonable thinking adult would understand that children do tend to wobble.

Additionally, any auggestion that i should look backwards while walking is simply ludicroud.

lThanks for your snide comment, you have convinced me to start working at getting the government to police the bike laws and the nca to set speed limits for bikes.

The day of the week must end with a ‘y’ as there is another +/- bike discussion on RA! Can JB just randomly copy 100 posts from the last bike discussion into this one and close it? C’mon, surely that would save everyone (incl JB!) some time? 🙂

Visitor01Q said :

A courteous respondent wouldn’t make assumptions about my location.

We, the walkers, were
Most definitely on the left hand side, the twat simply wanted more room and any reasonable thinking adult would understand that children do tend to wobble.

Additionally, any auggestion that i should look backwards while walking is simply ludicroud.

lThanks for your snide comment, you have convinced me to start working at getting the government to police the bike laws and the nca to set speed limits for bikes.

Bring it on, as long as you include all pedestrians in your crusade 😉

Another rider an I were stopped on either side of the Beazley St intersection near Mawson Shops last week. No less than 10 people walked against the red light (on that occasion, happens every day).

I said to him ” & us bike riders are arseholes when we run the red lights”……….He agreed at the hypocracy.

Think about that.

Postalgeek said :

[, exactly how do we make sure there is enough room for them to pass?

There are signs at either end of CW bridge indicating to stay left. That’s a start.

Hosinator said :

thebrownstreak69 said :

If a cyclist leant on my car I’d ask them not to. If they refused, I’d move their hand myself.

As a cyclist I think this is an extremely rude practice by other cyclists. If I was in my car and a cyclist leant on my car, I’d tell them to f%$k off.
I agree with other comments here that cyclists coming up to pedestrians do need to be cautious and sound their bell, or slow down and let pedestrians/cyclists pass where appropriate.

However, the respect needs to be two way. On a number of occasions whilst cycling on a shared path I have had pedestrians step onto my side of the path with now warning, expecting me to ride off the shared path because there is a low hanging tree branch on their side of the shared path.

Rather than stopping and waiting for me to pass and then going around, they think I can simply jump off the path onto grass/dirt/rocks/tree branches. As those religious zealots say, do unto others as you would have them do to you.

Seems like a pretty fair position to take.

A courteous respondent wouldn’t make assumptions about my location. We, the walkers, were
Most definitely on the left hand side, the twat simply wanted more room and any reasonable thinking adult would understand that children do tend to wobble. Additionally, any auggestion that i should look backwards while walking is simply ludicroud. lThanks for your snide comment, you have convinced me to start working at getting the government to police the bike laws and the nca to set speed limits for bikes.

bikhet said :

How Canberran!

Oh, do please shut up!

thebrownstreak69 said :

If a cyclist leant on my car I’d ask them not to. If they refused, I’d move their hand myself.

As a cyclist I think this is an extremely rude practice by other cyclists. If I was in my car and a cyclist leant on my car, I’d tell them to f%$k off.
I agree with other comments here that cyclists coming up to pedestrians do need to be cautious and sound their bell, or slow down and let pedestrians/cyclists pass where appropriate.

However, the respect needs to be two way. On a number of occasions whilst cycling on a shared path I have had pedestrians step onto my side of the path with now warning, expecting me to ride off the shared path because there is a low hanging tree branch on their side of the shared path. Rather than stopping and waiting for me to pass and then going around, they think I can simply jump off the path onto grass/dirt/rocks/tree branches. As those religious zealots say, do unto others as you would have them do to you.

If a cyclist leant on my car I’d ask them not to. If they refused, I’d move their hand myself.

Pitchka said :

Paths and bridges generally have lanes painted on them, so if you are a cyclist, and are approaching pedestrians, ring your bell and go around them (similar concept to overtaking if in a vehicle)..

However, if you are approaching pedestrians, and there are also other pedestrians/cyclist approaching in the opposite direction, please realise that its not up to pedestrians to stop what they are doing, move over as far to the left as humanly possible, just so they you can get through… Slow the f**k down, wait till it is clear, then proceed to pass (again, similar concept to driving a vehicle and overtaking to the right)..

I agree with your sentiment on passing but Canberrans are not taught to pass on 2 lane roads like country folk and they have no idea how to do it, especially in their car. We see it time and time again on the Kings & Monaro Highways.

Re the bridges & Visitors experience, Commonwealth Av bike path is quite narrow compared to the other paths and is quite noisy. I regularly come across walkers who, when I call or ring a bell depending on the bike I am on, either have headphones on, ignore you, distracted by the view/chatting to their friends or just cannot plain hear you.

Yep the rider probably need to take a chill pill but I bet Visitor was not really watching what they were doing either. It takes two to tango.

Re the resting on car thing, DON’T DO IT PEOPLE! Its not your car, have some respect.

Hopefully got a good tune up! I have seen a similar thing here in Woden when a wanker on a pushy pulled up and put his hand on the boot lid of the car infront of me. Old mate moves forward and said wanker falls over with his feet stuck to the pedals in the middle of the road

Pitchka said :

Was waiting at the intersection of Dairy Flat Rd yesterday and a cyclist rode up to the car in front of me (1st in line at the lights), a Mazda 6. Cyclist stopped to the right of the M6 and proceeded to grab hold of the side mirror, it broke, and he fell.

Funny thing is he then rode of through a red light thinking he would make a great escape… M6 promplty ran the red light and drove in front of cyclist to cut him off, i cant comment on what happened after that, light was green and i had driven off.

Of course a gentleman would’ve got up and apologised then given an undertaking to pay for the damage.

Paths and bridges generally have lanes painted on them, so if you are a cyclist, and are approaching pedestrians, ring your bell and go around them (similar concept to overtaking if in a vehicle)..

However, if you are approaching pedestrians, and there are also other pedestrians/cyclist approaching in the opposite direction, please realise that its not up to pedestrians to stop what they are doing, move over as far to the left as humanly possible, just so they you can get through… Slow the f**k down, wait till it is clear, then proceed to pass (again, similar concept to driving a vehicle and overtaking to the right)..

Was waiting at the intersection of Dairy Flat Rd yesterday and a cyclist rode up to the car in front of me (1st in line at the lights), a Mazda 6. Cyclist stopped to the right of the M6 and proceeded to grab hold of the side mirror, it broke, and he fell.

Funny thing is he then rode of through a red light thinking he would make a great escape… M6 promplty ran the red light and drove in front of cyclist to cut him off, i cant comment on what happened after that, light was green and i had driven off.

Visitor01Q said :

I had the misfortune to have a run in with one of these no bell tossers yesterday crossing Commonwealth Avenue bridge.

I don’t know about you, but I don’t have eyes in the back of my head so if these tossers don’t let us know they are coming, exactly how do we make sure there is enough room for them to pass?

Well, for a start a courteous pedestrian stays to the left to allow faster users to pass safely, and demonstrates situational awareness and responsible parenting by ensuring that their child is safe and sticks left as well.

And a courteous rider will announce their approach.

I had the misfortune to have a run in with one of these no bell tossers yesterday crossing Commonwealth Avenue bridge. I don’t know about you, but I don’t have eyes in the back of my head so if these tossers don’t let us know they are coming, exactly how do we make sure there is enough room for them to pass? That aside, my daughter is 8 years old, she has no concept of rude, arrogant arsewipes that think its ok to stop and verbally abuse an 8 year old for getting in their way without any warning that they are coming. Grow up people, you are sharing the space, learn some god damn manners and give people some simple common courtesy.

http://cdn.memegenerator.net/instances/250×250/32604504.jpg

Jivrashia said :

Ryoma said :

When we visit Japan, Mrs Ryoma

Sakamoto, is that you?

Hai, so daio :P. But shh, you’ll blow my cover….

Ryoma said :

When we visit Japan, Mrs Ryoma

Sakamoto, is that you?

I saw a letter in the canberra times within the last fortnight that i wonder if it was from zan about this very topic. the “incident” wasn’t even discussed, warning or lack thereof wasn’t discussed, but just the fact that Zan went to task about the cyclist not having a bell on them.

I wonder if this post would’ve been started at all had the cyclist said “sure I have a bell. I didn’t want to ding you in case you thought i was being aggressive and expecting you to get out of my way or similar”.

Because regardless of the incident, or perhaps the lack of a warning, the issue would be dead in the water.

carnardly said :

actually Ryoma, the only relevant law is that bikes must be fitted with an audible warning device. There is no law dictacting when, where or how it must be used.

As long as I have a device on my bike, I am legal. Legally I am also never required to even use it.

But for courtesy’s sake I do.

Actually you are legally required to in the ACT.

See ACT Road Rules Handbook Part E – Other Road Users
Under Cycle paths (page number 102) “If approaching pedestrians from behind, ring your bell to let them know you are coming, slow down as you pass and give them right of way.”

Hi Carnardly, fair enough, it may not be the law, and I think we are in agreement about the courtesy side of things.

86 posts and counting…love it!

actually Ryoma, the only relevant law is that bikes must be fitted with an audible warning device. There is no law dictacting when, where or how it must be used.

As long as I have a device on my bike, I am legal. Legally I am also never required to even use it. But for courtesy’s sake I do.

Well, this post has certainly taken my mind off bushfires, and has made me laugh, for the following reasons;

1) How very Canberran (love the tag, by the way!) of us to rack up 83 posts between us over something as elementary as what used to be considered common courtesy.

2) #57 from @Aeek. I love the fact you had an air horn, but am disappointed at the reaction you got. I think having a naval foghorn attached to my bike would be fantastic fun to scare people with, watching them jump 6 foot into the air in fright as I came anywhere near them…mwahahaha 🙂

3) @borizuka, I agree with you. At least in most of Australia, our houses have setbacks from the road so that we have some idea of what’s coming around the next corner. When we visit Japan, Mrs Ryoma blithely rides through every blind corner without a care in the world, and smoothly dodges any passing scooters/bicycles or trucks that happen to be passing through.

Muggins, on the other hand, was not brought up to ride a bike in such anarchy, and so struggles to keep up because he is busy checking what’s left and right if he hears any noise at all. Mostly the noise is just Mrs Ryoma laughing at him….sigh….

Now to be a bit more sensible…

@Zan, I am sorry to hear you had such an encounter. Hopefully other cyclists act in a better manner in future, and use their bells or voices 🙂

Yes, using a bell is the law, and I do it when cycling. Having said that, most of us, either pedestrians or cyclists, react best when we slow down, communicate in a friendly manner, and then get on with our business.

Few of us like either getting a fright when walking; or having to either almost stop, or ride off the path (when cycling), so why don’t we all just adapt to the situation?

As Miss Manners says, law, which is applied with a broad brush, and removes individual discretion in a any given situation, has to be called upon when etiquette is no longer used. I agree with Jono @ post #33.

tuco said :

NoImRight said :

Id rather the bell than shouting “bike”. It always sounds like a royal command when its shouted out for some reason. I dont know if its just I notice more now but there seems to be an increasing number of bikes on the road living in an apparent safety bubble so Im happy to share with them on footpaths if it stops them wobbling about on busy roads and cutting through intersections.

I suppose calling “track” is a bridge too far. Don’t get me started on “race leader” either …

STRAVA!!!!!!!!

I just recently came back from asia, with having the full experience of both driving and cycling on their roads. I must say that all of you are a bunch of princesses. seriously.

I felt safer on the road over there, everyone gave way and there was never any issues with pedestrians, cyclists, scooters or cars like over here.

We have a lot to learn from under developed countries. One such thing is how to be friken nice and considerate of one another.

Still with this…

It really is easy. Walkers keep on the left side. Riders overtake on the right. If there are kiddies or dogs just pass on the grass or slow down a bit.

Anybody who gets startled by a bell or someone yelling bike probably shouldn’t be leaving the house anyways.

NoImRight said :

Id rather the bell than shouting “bike”. It always sounds like a royal command when its shouted out for some reason. I dont know if its just I notice more now but there seems to be an increasing number of bikes on the road living in an apparent safety bubble so Im happy to share with them on footpaths if it stops them wobbling about on busy roads and cutting through intersections.

I suppose calling “track” is a bridge too far. Don’t get me started on “race leader” either …

NoImRight said :

Id rather the bell than shouting “bike”. It always sounds like a royal command when its shouted out for some reason. I dont know if its just I notice more now but there seems to be an increasing number of bikes on the road living in an apparent safety bubble so Im happy to share with them on footpaths if it stops them wobbling about on busy roads and cutting through intersections.

‘Bike’ is effective as saying anything longer makes the person stagger round to understand what phrase you just said. Bells just don’t work, they really don’t. My primary aim is to not run you (or your kids or dog) over, it will hurt you and me and damage my expensive bike. I just need you and those you love to keep left, that’s it! If you do this, then don’t need to feel startled or endangered. Simple.

Id rather the bell than shouting “bike”. It always sounds like a royal command when its shouted out for some reason. I dont know if its just I notice more now but there seems to be an increasing number of bikes on the road living in an apparent safety bubble so Im happy to share with them on footpaths if it stops them wobbling about on busy roads and cutting through intersections.

While I think it is better to warn pedestrians of your approach one way or another, using a bell does make more sense. For one, most bells sound the same, and so the sound is consistent, unlike the various phrases that cyclists use as a warning. The consistency means that once learnt, the sound of a bell approaching will always mean the same thing. Children and dogs will also learn what this sound means quicker than they will learn that a person yelling something from a distance means that there is a bicyclist coming. The human brain recognises and processes speech sounds differently than non-human sounds and so when you yell ‘bike’ etc. the brain first tries to process what you are saying before it processes the meaning and intention.

As a child in the early ’90s I learned from my parents and my school (we often had bike-riding excursions as a class) that as a pedestrian a bell means that there is a bicyclist coming, as well as to ring your bell when riding to warn pedestrians that you will be passing them soon. I still react quicker to a bell than I do to a voice, even though ringing a bell is no longer as common.

I think the key to this is consistency – either bring bells back into fashion, or pick a word, ‘bike’ is a pretty good one being so short and to the point, and a stick to it.

I’d love to witness the pink fit that Zan would have upon seeing some of the home-made/modified Choppers/Tallbikes/Cargo bikes etc rolling around town. All road-legit according to the rules.

Cyclist really can’t take a trick with this one. There’s all these anti cyclist people who say bikes shouldn’t be on the road, then they turn around and say bikes shouldn’t be on cycle paths or should be going at the same speed as a pedestrian. As for speed, what speed should a cyclist be doing on a shared path? When I ride on the road, it’s not like I expect cars passing me to slow down to the 25-40km/h I might be doing. The only expectation I have is that they overtake me safely.

I’ve been riding/walking/running Canberra’s bike paths/shared paths for 35+ years and never had any real issues. From what I’ve seen, the people that bitch about lack of warning are usually the ones meandering all over the path. If you keep left, keep your dog on a leash to your left and keep your kids closely monitored and to the left (and yes, I have kids) then it shouldn’t matter to you whether a cyclist uses a bell or not. By the same token, it’s a responsibility of us cyclists to warn other path users of our approach and slow down if there’s a potential danger ahead such as kids/pets/horses.

For some of us, the shared paths aren’t just for a leisurely stroll. They are actually our path to work sometimes 25 or more kilometers away. Fortunately most people follow the simple keep left rule and our commute is usually the very best way to get to work.

drfelonious said :

Deckard I wonder were you in Tuggeranong at the time you encountered that self absorbed arrogant moron?

No, this was in Belconnen, Tuggeranong’s sister city in the north.

drfelonious said :

Deckard I wonder were you in Tuggeranong at the time you encountered that self absorbed arrogant moron?

I rarely ride in Tuggers but when I do I seem to encounter a disproportionate number of f tards insisting I ring my bell even when I go out of my way to go five metres away from them off the path on the grass. I have had a very similar encounter to the one you describe.

Never had any problems around my usual ride LBG though.

Really? You need to get out more often. There are more farktards walking the 5km of bridge to bridge than in one trip than I encounter on a years worth of commuting to and from Tuggeranong.

Typical north side snob.

Deckard I wonder were you in Tuggeranong at the time you encountered that self absorbed arrogant moron?

I rarely ride in Tuggers but when I do I seem to encounter a disproportionate number of f tards insisting I ring my bell even when I go out of my way to go five metres away from them off the path on the grass. I have had a very similar encounter to the one you describe.

Never had any problems around my usual ride LBG though.

KB1971 said :

Well, shoot me, I didn’t ring my bell once and we all got along this morning.

Not for me I’m afraid.

I passed a woman trying to walk her dog. Her dog was actually walking her, embarrassing given the size of it. Anyway, there was another couple walking their dog and we all met up at the same time. I decided the last thing everyone wanted was a cyclist dinging them to mix up the situation so I gave them a few metres and rode around on the grass. Must’ve given her a fright as that’s when I get the ‘Jesus, don’t you have a bell??’

I gave her the ‘whatever’ wave and muttered ‘f you’ under my breath.

Seriously, you can not win. Next time I’m going to ride up behind her and keep dinging until she gets the f out of my way…

Well, shoot me, I didn’t ring my bell once and we all got along this morning.

Aeek said :

Solidarity said :

Not having lights on your bike at night is illegal. Not having lights on yourself while walking at night is not. Just saying.

The bicycle light requirement is that the light clearly visible at 200m. No requirement to be able to see, say a non-reflective pedestrian at 1m. Just saying.

A non reflective as in black or a white person with nothing luminescent on their person?

Solidarity said :

Not having lights on your bike at night is illegal. Not having lights on yourself while walking at night is not. Just saying.

The bicycle light requirement is that the light clearly visible at 200m. No requirement to be able to see, say a non-reflective pedestrian at 1m. Just saying.

Felix the Cat said :

So you are bagging the cyclist for not having lights or reflective clothing but you aren’t lit up or have reflective clothing either. That makes you just as bad as each other.

a) How do you know that? There may have been other reasons schmeah wasn’t seen – for instance, reflective clothing needs light to reflect.

b) There is no legal requirement for pedestrians – or joggers – the have either lights or reflective clothing. There is such a requirement for cyclists to have lights.

Now it may be sensible for a pedestrian to have reflective, or a least light coloured, clothing, but they are not as bad as each other. One is committing a crime whereas the other is showing poor judgement,

Not having lights on your bike at night is illegal. Not having lights on yourself while walking at night is not. Just saying.

schmeah said :

I think people riding their bikes at night time without lights are a much bigger issue. I used to go jogging in Turner in the evening during the winter on the footpath and on a couple of occasions nearly got wiped out by students on bikes with no lights and no reflective gear. Typically international students who simply had no idea; they couldn’t see me and I couldn’t see them until they almost took me out .. and no, never heard a bell either.

Don’t even get me started on those I see riding on the road without lights ..

So you are bagging the cyclist for not having lights or reflective clothing but you aren’t lit up or have reflective clothing either. That makes you just as bad as each other.

Jono said :

Frustrated said :

I use a bike frequently and ridden the Canberra cyclewas for nigh on 4 decades now, but I don’t yell you ‘Bike’ and I use my bell.

The ones yelling out ‘bike’ are usually the wankers who feel the need to wear advertising lycra as they cycle. Posers!

I’ve been running on Canberra’s shared paths, not for 40 years, but for about 25, and I’ve never once had a cyclist call, “bike” to me. I do use it very occasionally when riding, but only to those who are clearly behaving erratically.

I repeat, if you’re hearing it often enough to get you so obviously upset, perhaps you need to have a think about how you are using the paths.

And there really needs to be a subclause of Godwin’s Law regarding discussions about cyclists and the word “lycra”. I don’t wear it (if you knew my body shape, you’d understand), but I can’t imagine being offended by those who do – that strikes me as being nothing short of bizarre.

I too have, on occasion, reverted to using a voice call such as ‘bike’ when cycling to/from work. Usually when I get no acknowledgement to the two or three dings of the bell and space is tight. If space is not tight I just give 2/3 dings and be done with it. If you don’t hear and get startled, that’s your bad luck.

For the record, I’ll give the first ding at about 30-40 metres, the second at about 20 and the third at about 10. This gives the walker a chance to gauge my closing distance/speed.

As stated, if the walker takes offense, that says more about them than me.

Frustrated said :

I use a bike frequently and ridden the Canberra cyclewas for nigh on 4 decades now, but I don’t yell you ‘Bike’ and I use my bell.

The ones yelling out ‘bike’ are usually the wankers who feel the need to wear advertising lycra as they cycle. Posers!

I’ve been running on Canberra’s shared paths, not for 40 years, but for about 25, and I’ve never once had a cyclist call, “bike” to me. I do use it very occasionally when riding, but only to those who are clearly behaving erratically. I repeat, if you’re hearing it often enough to get you so obviously upset, perhaps you need to have a think about how you are using the paths.

And there really needs to be a subclause of Godwin’s Law regarding discussions about cyclists and the word “lycra”. I don’t wear it (if you knew my body shape, you’d understand), but I can’t imagine being offended by those who do – that strikes me as being nothing short of bizarre.

Jono said :

Frustrated said :

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

Obviously written by somebody who’s never ridden a bike on a shared path. There are some pedestrians (typically, but not exclusively, those who walk two or three abreast across the path), who simply ignore the bell, and I have a particularly loud bell. But even they will generally respond to a call of “bike”. With every pedestrian that I approach I make a decision as to pass them without making a noise, ringing my bell as I approach, or giving them a call. It’s normally the ones who are behaving erratically or clearly without thought for others who I use the final one on.

If you’re hearing a “bike” call often, perhaps it’s more a comment on you than on the cyclists.

I use a bike frequently and ridden the Canberra cyclewas for nigh on 4 decades now, but I don’t yell you ‘Bike’ and I use my bell.

The ones yelling out ‘bike’ are usually the wankers who feel the need to wear advertising lycra as they cycle. Posers!

Frustrated said :

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.

No. You meant “their” way, and “because their bikes are NOT suitable to be ridden on grass.”

If you’re going to whinge, get it right. 🙂

Frustrated said :

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

Obviously written by somebody who’s never ridden a bike on a shared path. There are some pedestrians (typically, but not exclusively, those who walk two or three abreast across the path), who simply ignore the bell, and I have a particularly loud bell. But even they will generally respond to a call of “bike”. With every pedestrian that I approach I make a decision as to pass them without making a noise, ringing my bell as I approach, or giving them a call. It’s normally the ones who are behaving erratically or clearly without thought for others who I use the final one on. If you’re hearing a “bike” call often, perhaps it’s more a comment on you than on the cyclists.

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.

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?

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.

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.

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?

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!

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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 😛

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??

kakosi said :

I think the real solution is to get bikes out of pedestrian areas. Far too dangerous mixing the two together.

Or…make it the law that bikes give way to pedestrians. This way they have to slow down to avoid a collision.

If bike riders want to ride at high speeds, it’s simple – get on the roads.

You made tea come out of my nose!

Of course, the more pervasive issue is one of bad shared path design.

Consider the following article “Paths – Wide Enough for Everyone” from Bicycle Network Victoria (http://www.bicyclenetwork.com.au/general/bike-futures/30162/) which advocates safer often wider and separated path design. Chicken and the egg issues regarding usage, safety and traffic load.

Interestingly the relevant ACT Road Rules note:

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. Penalty: 1 penalty unit.

It does not say anywhere that one needs to use any of these devices or that warnings can not be given with a voice.

A brief relevant voiced warning (given well ahead of a walking/cycling/scooting obstacle) is often an useful complement or an even better alternative than a bell for easily startled pedestrians (deer in headlights syndrome). My voice is way louder and carries further than any bell or horn short of a super duper you bewt air horn. Being ready to ride around obstacles (dreamy pedestrians) and off the path or stop if necessary is always an essential component of safe riding. I find I have more trouble with hapless Canberran motorists (especially those in 4WDs).

bikhet said :

OK,so I’m a pedant, but:

1) a bicyclists’ voice is part of the bicyclist, not part of the bicycle; and

2) a voice is generally not a device.

Agreed. I don’t think any reasonable interpretation of the provision would include a person’s voice as a “similar warning device”. It’s defining something the bike has to have, not the rider of the bike.

From personal experience, if you are walking along a shared path and talking with the person beside you, it’s quite difficult to hear an approaching cyclist’s voice. They should have a bell and use it. Lights too.

I both cycle and walk on the shared paths on a regular basis so don’t have any particular pro- or anti-bike bias, but do agree with the OP in this case that a bell should have been used (though personally, I wouldn’t have made the comment to the passing cyclist, as you’d be quite likely to get abuse flung back at you).

The road rules say a bicycle needs a warning device, but does that apply to just use on a road or road-like area or on all bicycles in all forms of use such as on a shared path as per the OP?

bikhet said :

KB1971 said :

Zan said :

Are all you a bit short of grey cells? The point is that it is the law to have a bell on the bike. That is what this is about. Not about whether I got a fright on the bike path.

It is the LAW to have a bell on the bike.

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.

Um no but you are missing one crucial part of the rule “OR SIMILAR WARNING DEVICE”.

Section A(b) does not mandate that a bike must have a bell, just a warning device which may be a bell.

If he uses his voice as a warning then he may consider that to be in accordance with the law, a loose interpretation yes but the law does not tighten it down to just a bell or horn.

OK,so I’m a pedant, but:

1) a bicyclists’ voice is part of the bicyclist, not part of the bicycle; and

2) a voice is generally not a device.

Hmm, true. I say give them what they want:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j9U75etv6mA

I think the real solution is to get bikes out of pedestrian areas. Far too dangerous mixing the two together.

Or…make it the law that bikes give way to pedestrians. This way they have to slow down to avoid a collision.

If bike riders want to ride at high speeds, it’s simple – get on the roads.

KB1971 said :

Zan said :

Are all you a bit short of grey cells? The point is that it is the law to have a bell on the bike. That is what this is about. Not about whether I got a fright on the bike path.

It is the LAW to have a bell on the bike.

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.

Um no but you are missing one crucial part of the rule “OR SIMILAR WARNING DEVICE”.

Section A(b) does not mandate that a bike must have a bell, just a warning device which may be a bell.

If he uses his voice as a warning then he may consider that to be in accordance with the law, a loose interpretation yes but the law does not tighten it down to just a bell or horn.

OK,so I’m a pedant, but:

1) a bicyclists’ voice is part of the bicyclist, not part of the bicycle; and

2) a voice is generally not a device.

One of the biggest problems I see is that well over half of the walkers have their iPod on and blasting away at levels that make it impossible for them to be aware of their surroundings anyway.

So you can ring, sound a horn, shout or fire a shotgun and they still don’t know you are coming until you are upon them.

Don’t get me started on motorists and cyclists wearing earphones either. I am stunned everytime I see that.

Point 1: Bells are required by law on bikes.
Point 2: A bell’s sound carries further than an average voice calling out one of an endless variety of silly phrases (“passing”, “bike behind”, “coming through”, “look out you morons” etc).
Point 3: In many countries (especially where lane markings are nonexistent or ignored by drivers) cars do in fact use their horn to indicate they’re about to pass.
Point 4 onwards: Just use your bell, once when you see someone ahead and again when you get closer. Most people will appreciate it. Those who don’t will soon learn to, when all cyclists do the same.

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?

Zan said :

Are all you a bit short of grey cells? The point is that it is the law to have a bell on the bike. That is what this is about. Not about whether I got a fright on the bike path.

It is the LAW to have a bell on the bike.

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.

Um no but you are missing one crucial part of the rule “OR SIMILAR WARNING DEVICE”.

Section A(b) does not mandate that a bike must have a bell, just a warning device which may be a bell.

If he uses his voice as a warning then he may consider that to be in accordance with the law, a loose interpretation yes but the law does not tighten it down to just a bell or horn.

I always find threads like this fascinating. I’ve said this before on previous threads, but I’ve been a daily user of the shared paths in Canberra as a cyclist, walker and runner for 25 years and I’ve never had a serious run in with anybody. As a cyclist, I try to be considerate to pedestrians, and I’ll ring my bell, or call “cyclist”, when I deem it to be appropriate (as has been mentioned the random behaviour of some pedestrians upon hearing the bell can be a hazard), and as a pedestrian I’m always aware of the fact that there could be a cyclist coming up behind me or just around the next corner and act accordingly.

Thoughtfulness and consideration on both parts goes a long way.

Agree with OP. Bike riders, just have a working bell on your bike, and ring it on approach so your approach is noted. It really ain’t hard, and it’s THE LAW. Using your voice is no substitute as it can be indistinguishable from other voices, whereas a bell cuts through to ‘send a signal’.

I can’t believe that some numb-nuts are actually quibbling with the OP on this issue. No wonder people are generally shitty with bike riders – in general, they are a selfish and discourteous lot. However, thank you to those few bell ringers out there for your persistent curtesy. It is appreciated more than you know.

An encounter today on the shared footpath/bicycle caused a bicyclist who had no bell.

Did no one actually read the original post? The ‘encounter’ that occurred caused the bicyclist. 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.

Don’t be so hard on the bicyclist with no bell; s/he had no choice but to be caused. But the fact that Zan and whoever s/he was with caused this bicyclist with no bell and then started bad mouthing said bicyclist with no bell on a public forum such as RiotACT really doesn’t endear our Zan to me. Terrible parenting… though very fast parenting too if the bicyclist was indeed caused and came to be riding a bike on the same day… I couldn’t ride a bike for several years after I was caused.

But really, I’m with DrKoresh; get over yourself and start enjoying your retirement instead of getting cranky about nothing (or at least nothing you’re willing to describe clearly).

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????

Are all you a bit short of grey cells? The point is that it is the law to have a bell on the bike. That is what this is about. Not about whether I got a fright on the bike path.

It is the LAW to have a bell on the bike.

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.

Comic_and_Gamer_Nerd said :

Yelling out *passing* seems to be far more effective than any bell.

This.

The bell gets ignored or swallowed by road noise if the track is near a road or wind if it is windy. I find yelling “bike back’ far more effective BUT it has to be done at a distance to give the walkers time to react with a thank you as I ride past.

I think people riding their bikes at night time without lights are a much bigger issue. I used to go jogging in Turner in the evening during the winter on the footpath and on a couple of occasions nearly got wiped out by students on bikes with no lights and no reflective gear. Typically international students who simply had no idea; they couldn’t see me and I couldn’t see them until they almost took me out .. and no, never heard a bell either.

Don’t even get me started on those I see riding on the road without lights ..

Deckard said :

Maybe the guy had a bell in the past but was abused by another pedestrian for ringing it when approaching from behind when they think he didn’t need to.

You really can’t win. Some pedestrians want you to ring every time you pass them, some only want you to ring if they’re in your way. Be prepared to cop some abuse from one or the other.

Believe it or not, this has actually happened to me. I even have a witness to prove it.

DrKoresh said :

Oh FFS. Did he do anything other than startle you as he went past? Because you haven’t given any details to make me think otherwise. I personally find having a bell rung at me to be incredibly irritating a and rude. I much prefer they use their words, or even better, go around me.

I can’t even find the words to describe how ridiculous you and this whole thread are. The way you end the article with ‘Offence provision.’ as if you were the victim of some terrible crime and as though you don’t commit countless similar misdemeanours every day is the most offensive part. I have to stop now, before I just degenerate into insulting but please try to appreciate what a ludicrous waste of everybody’s time this thread has been. Let it go, I’m sure you break equally stupid and minor laws all the time without even realising. In closing, go read a book or something, I’ve been reading Stephen Fry lately, he’s fun maybe it’ll take your mind off the small (the stupidly, laughably, tediously small) things.

What would be the situation if there was a collision between the errant cyclist and the pedestrian and the cyclist came off seriously injured?
I’ll tell you; every member of Petal Power would be on this blog condemning pedestrians.
Enjoy your Stephen Fry (I prefer Lamb’s Fry myself)

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!

I am a daily commuter cyclist who uses a bell to warn pedestrians that I am overtaking. When walking or running on shared paths I find cyclists that do not warn you that they are overtaking annoying and sometimes dangerous. The lycra dudes seem to be the worst. Way too cool to have a bell.

Why do some people underplay how dangerous a bicycle going at fast speed can be if they collide with a pedestrian?

I saw two cyclists almost collide with tourists around Lake Burley Griffin today. They didn’t ring bells – they were racing along – the young couple jumped out of the way (which was lucky cause these two weren’t going to slow down). And as they passed they yelled out abuse. Very nice introduction to Australian culture.

If you were driving in the left lane on the freeway and a faster car overtook you (safely and legally) would you expect them to blast you on the horn as they approached from behind?

Cyclists can’t win either way. As PPs have said, using the bell or calling out often seems to cause more offense. And the law only says you have to have a warning device, not that you have to use it every single time you overtake.

You are on a shared path. A sensible person would expect to encounter other people using a variety of modes of transport.

Oh FFS. Did he do anything other than startle you as he went past? Because you haven’t given any details to make me think otherwise. I personally find having a bell rung at me to be incredibly irritating a and rude. I much prefer they use their words, or even better, go around me.

I can’t even find the words to describe how ridiculous you and this whole thread are. The way you end the article with ‘Offence provision.’ as if you were the victim of some terrible crime and as though you don’t commit countless similar misdemeanours every day is the most offensive part. I have to stop now, before I just degenerate into insulting but please try to appreciate what a ludicrous waste of everybody’s time this thread has been. Let it go, I’m sure you break equally stupid and minor laws all the time without even realising. In closing, go read a book or something, I’ve been reading Stephen Fry lately, he’s fun maybe it’ll take your mind off the small (the stupidly, laughably, tediously small) things.

I get them all the time when I’m walking the Staffy Ridgeback Cross, scares me therefore he attacks, Protecting me and him, Can tell you I’m seeing the same people who he has attacked are now ringing their bells or calling out to me, better than reporting it!!

sien said :

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.

It’s not an issue if the cyclist sounds the bell from an appropriate distance and is travelling at a reasonable speed for a shared path. As a daily bicycle commuter who uses the bell, I have never found this to be a problem.

Yelling out *passing* seems to be far more effective than any bell.

Zan said :

How_Canberran said :

Tony said :

… The matter appears to be consuming Zan’s holidays….

I am retired. I am pointing out that bells belong on bikes, just as horns are on cars, and should be used to let people know they are coming up behind.

It seems that some silly people do not know or even care about the rules and regulations or even common courtesy.

How many times do you hear the horns in people’s cars being used to warn the driver ahead that they are coming from behind? I thought use of car horn for this purpose is nowadays bordering on road rage.

I asked him where his bell was. He said he didn’t need one as it didn’t fit on his bars.

I am surprised he gave such a polite answer, I would expected something more like ‘F off arse clown”

So, was there a problem? Did he nearly hit you?

If not, so what?

Clothesline: “a pro wrestling move in which a wrestler puts his arm straight out to the side and knocks his opponent over, either from his own momentum or his opponents”

Maybe the guy had a bell in the past but was abused by another pedestrian for ringing it when approaching from behind when they think he didn’t need to.

You really can’t win. Some pedestrians want you to ring every time you pass them, some only want you to ring if they’re in your way. Be prepared to cop some abuse from one or the other.

Zan said :

Hubby and I were walking on the left side of the white dividing line of the shared foot/bicycle path.

OK. We are slooooowly starting to get somewhere here Zen.

So, you and your life partner were meandering along the shared foot/bicycle path when a silent, yet darstardly bicycle rider wooshed past you (on your right?) and failed to announce his approach to your satisfaction. I read that he then stopped to engage you in light banter regarding his lawful requirement to have a warning device affixed to his bicycle?

Sorry, but this is not the Canberra I know. If you copped a foul mouthful, you would be lucky. A full blown punch-up could have been the worst.

How Canberran.

A bell is distinct enough to be sounded a reasonable distance from the people you are approaching, so as to negate the ‘they could do anything’ argument sien proffers. It is also the customary warning device. I do not accept that saying ‘bike’ less than 2 seconds before passing constitutes a warning, or that a persons voice could be considered an appropriate warning device.

Have a bell!
Ring your bell!

I’ve got a 3 year old learning to ride and a 5 year old learning to skate who could go in any direction in a moment. Ring your bell and we will stop so you can safely pass. If you do nothing or just say bike before speeding past and hit my boys, you will regret it.

Hubby and I were walking on the left side of the white dividing line of the shared foot/bicycle path.

Zan, you better make it clear from the outset that you were walking on the left side of the shared path and not blocking the thoroughfare.

More to the matter at hand, I’m thinking of finding a devices that constantly beeps. Some motorbike riders in Asia use them to let others know they are in close proximity without having to wear out their horn thumb. Maybe a timer app for my mounted iphone…

How_Canberran said :

Tony said :

… The matter appears to be consuming Zan’s holidays….

I am retired. I am pointing out that bells belong on bikes, just as horns are on cars, and should be used to let people know they are coming up behind.

It seems that some silly people do not know or even care about the rules and regulations or even common courtesy.

sien said :

The person’s voice is a similar device….

Except when they have a quiet voice, as he did. A ding on a bell is much louder.

Tony said :

Did you take his registration details and report to the pol…. oh, never mind.

Whoa there people! Poor Zan appears to have engaged in an ‘encounter’ with an errant Canberran cyclist. The matter appears to be consuming Zan’s holidays and is therefore worthy of RA caring and sharing. A little sympathy please.

How Canberran.

What ever happened to that simple courtesy of ringing one’s bell? I don’t want to navigate the legal minefield of having to go to court after plowing into a dogwalker or loving couple of one of our cities bike paths..I have been a bell-ringer from way back, but have noticed it is indeed a dying art.

.

Did you take his registration details and report to the pol…. oh, never mind.

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.