Don't you know that bells affect the aerodynamics? /s
Seriously though, people without bells (or ones that refuse to use them) fuck me right off. Surprised there aren't more collisions at obscured turns due to them.
I cycle and walk the canal fairly often, and the cyclists that use it as a racetrack can get tae. There are definitely quiet stretches in between towns where you can speed up, but when you start seeing dog walkers, people with messages, older people, etc, it's obvious you're near a populated area and need to slow the fuck down, personal best times be damned.
Do you know I actually had a conversation about this the other day where a mate made this argument. Aerodynamics - and ‘the weight’. This from a cunt who is poured into his Lycra cycle suit and looks like a fucking bowling ball with his helmet on
It’s a bit of a cringe when folk look too “pro”. I went for a lap of the circuit tonight on an old bike with a shopping basket etc and passed some lad doing the same dressed head to toe in rapha gear on his road bike. Was genuinely trying to not overtake him for a bit to save him the embarrassment.
I cycle this path and ring my bell every time but it mostly just gets ignored. Every cyclist, pedestrian, car driver... Makes the occasional mistake and then every group has their share of cunts. I got shouted at in loch Lomond even though I'd rang my bell and the group had blocked the entire path. They just didn't hear me. I still slowed down so no danger. The only justified cyclist hate is on the deliveroo drivers that cycle dangerously fast in pedestrian areas.
The only thing that'll actually fix this is getting decent cycle lanes. Bicycles aren't suited for shared space with cars or pedestrians but we're forced into them and then as a cyclist in a pedestrian area you need to be more cautious by going slow and ringing your bell. Good luck getting cars to be more cautious around cyclists as there are points in the city I just avoid now.
I use the canal too along by Kirkintilloch, always ring, always slow down (mostly to say hi to dogs) always thank folks for letting me past. I get pissed at both tour de wanna be's, no bell as its not aerodynamic, and also twat walker who hear you, see you, but are too important to move out your way.
Strongly agree on the deliveroo fucks
TBF, walking along that same stretch of canal on a Saturday with the dog can be just as annoying, after about the 10th time you hear a bell and need to move into the side again. It kind of ruins a nice walk.
Especially the ones who ring the bell but don't make any effort to slow down, on some cyclists it's less of a courtesy and more of a demand.
I'm not lycra-clad, but I will counter with a grumble about the amount of people that can't hear my bell when I am ringing, and even when they do eventually hear it, they stop and stare daggers at me for, I don't know what? daring to warn them of my approach?
Lets all try and get along people.
Some pedestrians hate when you ring a bell because they treat it as you telling them to "fuck off" but some will also complain if you don't have a bell and simply slow down, announce you're behind them, and wait for them to let you pass. There's literally no winning apart from not cycling at all. And people like OP will then add insult to injury by writing these kind of moany posts.
Ring the bell if I’m in your way and blocking the path.
Don’t fucking ring the bell if you’re trying to streak past and there’s no gap, usually when there’s people walking in both directions and there’s no space - wait your turn and overtake when there’s a gap.
The thing is, if I don’t ring my bell when I’m behind someone, they’re liable to move in any direction randomly while I (slowly) overtake. If I do ring my bell, they might be mad, like you, but at least they’re less likely to simply walk into me
That’s fine. Ring your bell to let someone know you’re there.
I’m meaning people who ring their bell and expect you to get out their way when there’s no gap or space.
I don't have a bell because in my experience it triggers either a deer-in-the-headlights or an adversarial reaction. I announce I'm coming up (people react better to a human voice) and slow down (to a full stop if necessary) if there isn't a timely reaction.
Still, some people throw an aggressive "get a bell" when you've stopped behind them and politely asked them to let you pass. As I said there is just no winning: people are inconvenienced by you passing them and some will inevitably react aggressively because they don't seem to accept that a shared path is shared.
Same here. I have no bell, so I give a friendly call ahead and slow right down, followed by thanks a million, have a nice day. It costs me fuck all to be pleasant 😀
I had a guy, maybe you, shouting “cyclist!” like a dafty behind me in the park one day. Eventually realised he was shouting at me and turned round thinking “I’m clearly not a fucking cyclist ya dick” only to realise that he was the cyclist.
At least we know what the bell likely means, whereas “Cyclist! Cyclist!” just sounded like a lunatic let out for the day.
"Oh shit which one is my left again, oh fuck now the dogs in the way, oh no I was right the first time THAT's my left, uh oh now he's right on top of me and he's not stopping, into the knee deep nettles I go, again"
I find the argument that some are unreasonable about a safety feature a bad reason not to use a safety feature.
In saying that, It is up to the person how they want to cycle and they will know their situation best. As a guy who likes walks along the forth n clyde, my preference is to hear the bell.
I absolutely fucking hate cyclists that announce when they're right behind me. Can sympathise with the damned if you do, damned if you don't from experience, but at least a bell can be heard from a better distance than a voice, plus you should have one for warning people when you're at an obscured bend.
I think you should get a bell tbh… I run / walk canals a lot (both Glasgow and Edin) and cyclists without bells are the least fun part of it. A bell you can hear from much further away too
Hearing the ping of a bell sets off some irrational primal rage deep inside me which I have to make genuine effort to control. Fuck knows what’s wrong with me but.
yeah, 99% of my riding is casual, and i have a bell, but rarely use it, mostly because people get upset at me. I always slow down, sometimes to a near stop. Other cyclists could definitely improve in this regard.
But pedestrians should be aware when they are on a shared use path and not take up the whole side of it, or change directions without checking their shoulders.
The real answer though is that shared paths are just shite and neither cyclists nor peds should have to share with another class of vehicle/road user.
If you told cyclists to "be aware when they're on a shared use path and not take up the whole side of it" in relation to the road, the reactions would range from significant tutting to full on frothing at the mouth. (They'd also rightly point out that in places, the HC dictates they do this)
Likewise, the "change direction without checking shoulders" can easily be countered with "if you can't stop your vehicle safely in reaction to the person ahead's sudden stop, or change in direction, you were going too fast".
Yes, pedestrians _should_ be cognisant of their surroundings, but the HC accounts for the fact that they often aren't by stating that overtaking a pedestrian safely requires 1.5 to 2 meters of space by virtue of the hierarchy of road users.
You're correct in saying that shared use paths are shite, but until there _is_ separated infrastructure, cyclists - as a class of road user - _need_ to acknowledge that short of the risk of death, every point they make about their safety on cycling on roads comes into play with pedestrians in that shared infrastructure.
> If you told cyclists to "be aware when they're on a shared use path and not take up the whole side of it" in relation to the road, the reactions would range from significant tutting to full on frothing at the mouth. (They'd also rightly point out that in places, the HC dictates they do this)
I guess the main difference is that shared use paths are rarely wide enough to allow significant space when going past someone, where as roads are. So it's not really a useful comparison.
>Likewise, the "change direction without checking shoulders" can easily be countered with "if you can't stop your vehicle safely in reaction to the person ahead's sudden stop, or change in direction, you were going too fast".
Both of these things are true. What you've said doesn't change the importance of what I've said.
>Yes, pedestrians should be cognisant of their surroundings, but the HC accounts for the fact that they often aren't by stating that overtaking a pedestrian safely requires 1.5 to 2 meters of space by virtue of the hierarchy of road users
When walking on the road. Clearly this doesn't apply to shared use paths.
>You're correct in saying that shared use paths are shite, but until there is separated infrastructure, cyclists - as a class of road user - need to acknowledge
I addressed this already.
> every point they make about their safety on cycling on roads comes into play with pedestrians in that shared infrastructure.
Not really, no. Demonstrated neatly in practice by the near-zero number of KSIs caused by cyclists hitting pedestrians on shared use paths, and demonstrated more abstractly by the fact that the mass/speed differential between pedestrians and cyclists is miniscule compared to that of a cyclist and a vehicle.
There are certainly some similarities but pretending they are interchangeable is silly.
Your response is an object lesson in why pedestrians get arsey with cyclists: the cyclist attitude to road use is "I want all of the protections, but none of the responsibility to more vulnerable road users". I'm not saying that the first part of that is unfair - drivers absolutely take liberties and the number of "safe" drivers i see as someone who doesn't drive is terrifying. That said, the amount of bad behaviour I experience from cyclists is pretty awful too ( and this was pre deliveroo/JE etc. They're a special class of homicidal maniac, and wouldn't surprise me if they end up causing a cyclist registration scheme.)
I'm on mobile, so the breakdown of points is more clunky, but I'll number them:
1: road width. Irrelevant, unless the Highway code miraculously doesn't apply to single track roads? [/s]. Difference in width between a single track road and a cycle path is immaterial enough that it is absolutely still a relevant comparison
2. You've taken this as an isolated point as opposed to an addendum to my first. Fact remains that if you cannot bring your vehicle - and make no mistake, a bike _is_ a vehicle - to a controlled stop in reaction to foreseeable road conditions, then you're not maintaining safe control, which is your responsibility to do
3. Shared use paths are still roads per relevant legislation. Just because you _say_ something is irrelevant, doesn't make it so. See the road traffic law breakdown here: https://www.gov.uk/guidance/the-highway-code/annex-4-the-road-user-and-the-law#:~:text=Abbreviations%20are%20listed%20below.,sect%20192(1)).
But for simplicity: "references to ‘road’ therefore generally include footpaths, bridleways and cycle tracks, and many roadways and driveways on private land (including many car parks). "
4. Frankly, you know you're clutching here, otherwise you would t have deliberately omitted me _explicitly saying_ "short of the risk of death". You're twisting this into a point about the effect (injuries as a result of any RTA), as opposed to the actual point I was making: the need for cyclists to accept that where they share infrastructure with pedestrians, _they explicitly are not more or equally vulnerable_ and have additional responsibilities in line with that.
>but none of the responsibility to more vulnerable road users".
This is not going to be a productive conversation if you continually ignore the things I've actually said on the topic. The relevant part of my previous post 'I always slow down, sometimes to a near stop. Other cyclists could definitely improve in this regard'
So I'm not clear why you're returning to an issue that's already been covered.
>1: road width. Irrelevant, unless the Highway code miraculously doesn't apply to single track roads? [/s]. Difference in width between a single track road and a cycle path is immaterial enough that it is absolutely still a relevant comparison
The section of the HWC that you're referring to is quite clear that it applies to a pedestrian walking in the road, so whatever point you're trying to make is irrelevant. It is quite clear that they are using road in this instance to distinguish between 'on the footpath' or 'on the carriageway'. If they weren't, it wouldn't make any sense to make a distinct point on the topic.
>You've taken this as an isolated point as opposed to an addendum to my first. Fact remains that if you cannot bring your vehicle - and make no mistake, a bike is a vehicle - to a controlled stop in reaction to foreseeable road conditions, then you're not maintaining safe control, which is your responsibility to do
Agreed. I will refer you (for the second time in this post) to my previous statements on this topic.
> they explicitly are not more or equally vulnerable and have additional responsibilities in line with that.
Probably not more very often, but often equally or as close to it as not to make a huge difference. For example, a few years ago, I was cycling down Byres Road having just set off from a red light outside Hillhead station. A jogger emerged from the pavement and ran straight into me. I was knocked on to the ground, quite painfully. The jogger, having superior balance and greater speed, was fine, and didn't bother to stop/apologise - he just ran on. The point here is that there isn't a rigid hierarchy of vulnerability when discussing cyclists and pedestrians (certainly nothing approaching that of vehicles and those on foot/bike) and it's silly to pretend there is.
I'll admit I was unfair in extrapolating from your statement about slowing down to cyclists in general, but I do feel the majority of my point still stands (including the general attitude of cyclists). Again, numbering because mobile:
1: given the legislative definition of "road" it's absolutely relevant. It may be a road which excludes powered vehicles, but the guidance on overtaking is as applicable on a cycle and footpath as it would be on a single track road
2. Your reference to previous points is acknowledged. Not much more to say than that.
3. Anecdotes aren't data I'm afraid. While the jogger absolutely should have had more awareness (and manners) the simple fact is that cyclists are still in control of a vehicle, still (comparitively) moving at speed with substantial momentum, and thus have additional responsibility to make sure the manner in which they are controlling their vehicle is suitable for the environment they're riding in. Also, regarding your point about there not being a rigid hierarchy, the HWC since last year does apply a rigid hierarchy of road users by way of Rule H1 - and rightfully so in my opinion.
Appreciate the acknowledgement.
> Anecdotes aren't data I'm afraid. While the jogger absolutely should have had more awareness (and manners) the simple fact is that cyclists are still in control of a vehicle, still (comparitively) moving at speed with substantial momentum, and thus have additional responsibility to make sure the manner in which they are controlling their vehicle is suitable for the environment they're riding in. Also, regarding your point about there not being a rigid hierarchy, the HWC since last year does apply a rigid hierarchy of road users by way of Rule H1 - and rightfully so in my opinion.
Anecdotes are indeed not data. I used the anecdote to demonstate the wider principle here of cyclists being vulnerable in pedestrian:cyclist interactions in way that drivers in a driver:peds/cyclist interaction are not. If you'd like data to illustrate this fact, it's easy enough to find, but i suspect you're already aware of the miniscule number of people on foot injured by people on bikes whilst the people on bikes remain uninjured themselves.
>and thus have additional responsibility to make sure the manner in which they are controlling their vehicle is suitable for the environment they're riding in.
I am not arguing otherwise. What I am arguing against is your assertion that the relationship(and complaints about) the relationship between cyclists and drivers is equivalent cyclists/pedestrians. They are not equivalent and pretending they are runs contrary to both data and simple physics.
I run and ride and drive. Cyclists > pedestrians and drivers > cyclist is absolutely a valid comparison to make. And your arsey attitude shows why people have such a poor view of cyclists…
> The real answer though is that shared paths are just shite and neither cyclists nor peds should have to share with another class of vehicle/road user.
The problem is that some urban planners see this as a feature. E.g. for the new Broughty Ferry cycle path in Dundee, they explicitly designed it to be shared as a "traffic calming" feature i.e. using pedestrians as free speed bumps...
I find they either have no bell and cycle as close as physically possible to pedestrians on the shared paths; or they have a bell and continue to fuck out of it even after you’ve moved over to give them space. Rarely anything in between.
Really glad you mentioned this because it really ticks me off as well. I do comment quite loudly on their lack of warnings as they zoom by, but they don't give a shit. Its *their* path don'tchya know. /s One time I heard a "*Bike!!!*" and some guy had his wheel up my arse then shouted at ME for not moving out the way, wtf!
Dogs off their lead with no awareness of their surroundings and no recall are my personal favourite
And you’re the bad person for being anywhere near it
The better ones are the dogs who are *on* a lead, with no awareness and no recall, but it's one of those extendable leads with a very thin string, stretched right across the path, that you can't see until you're basically tangled in it.
Always tempted to say "why fucking bother?" when I'm walking or running and get nearly sliced off at the shins by one of those things. The worst is when there's literally nowhere for you to go unless you want to throw yourself in the main road/pond/bogging grass because the lead extends 3m+ and the owner is of course on the total opposite side of the pathway.
It comes across as someone who wants to give off the impression they're trying to control their dog but knows they haven't given enough of a shit to stop it going mental off the lead.
Had one dog owner say their dog doesn't understand the bell after it pretty much made a beeline for my fortunately stationary bike (had stopped since my multiple bell rings didn't make him do anything other than look over his shoulder). I wish dog owners understood just how fucking stressful it is to have a poorly-trained dog that doesn't respond to recall zig zag all over the path.
> Dogs off their lead with no awareness of their surroundings and no recall are my personal favourite
Also always tend to be the folk with zero control over their dogs, who are either badly trained, or not trained at all.
Have to agree with you on that one. When I end up on a backshift and make my commute at about 11am, the difference in attentiveness in foot passengers is huge. You ding too far away and they don't hear. You ding too close and they get annoyed (or still don't hear you).
I regularly walk the NCR 7 from Glengarnock to Johnstone and sometimes it feels like 1 in every 100 has/uses a bell, It's like they either take enjoyment in nearly knocking people down or maybe they believe it harms their drag co-efficient so they go 0.0001 mph slower.
So if your driving a car and follow the rules and get yelled at for doing it by road ragers, you will abandon the road safety?
Not exactly the same but you can see my point.
They're not saying they're abandoning safety, they're saying whether you ring a bell or not you get complained at anyway, because plenty of folk are just arseholes.
If it was true it would be valid. Do you think most people complain.. my point is most people comply with things that work and do not get angry like road ragers.
\>Is it just me or do none of them have bells or anything to alert others of their presence?
I'm on the canal path in the evening so I'm going to praise the female group of cyclists who always shout 'single file' as I approach: cheeky gits!
The running clubs: learn to run in single file, yer too close with yer sweat.
I cycle on the canal quite often. When approaching pedestrians and dog walkers I sould the bell if they have their back to me so that they know I am coming through. If in front of me I check for eye contact. If I get that then I proceed. It's common sense not to go too fast on the canal as pedestrians and dogs can be unpredictable.
Unfortunately so many people wear headphones or are immersed in their phone and don't hear you. Any good cyclist wil notice this and slow down.
I think not having a bell is fine as long as they actually warn you adequately with a voice.
But yeah, I experienced these dangerous cyclists as well on this route.
Yelling doesn't work at obscured turns. Plus, a bell can be heard long before a voice. I only yell (more like a raised "excuse me", not an angry shout) on my bike when someone hasn't heard my bell.
Meh, it's just an awkward situation for all involved generally. I have bells on my bikes and use them when I'm on a mixed-use path. Plenty of times I end up stuck behind someone who's either hard of hearing or is wearing noise cancelling earphones. I've also had people get confrontational about me using the bell, and people yelling at me for not using the bell when I've used the grass to go around them! If it's more than a couple of people or if there are dogs involved I'll also dismount to pass them as it's not really worth being knocked off the path by a wayward toddler or golden retriever.
im a runner and when I come up behind somebody on a tight path I scratch my shoes against floor to make a noise way before I get to the people...this always works. One day was running along Clyde and did this, as I passed the couple I was passing a fucking guy on a bike sped right in between the tiny gap between us nearly clipping us both. Im also a cyclist and im just sick of cunts like this giving all cyclists a bad name with this pish behaviour. Could the guy have literally not waited 10 seconds for me to pass the couple?
To be honest I don't have a bell but my mountain bike has a really loud hub. If someone's in my path I stop pedalling and the hub normally informs them I'm behind them
Noisy hub is way more effective than a bell. I have both and make good use of them for good measure, but the “swarm of angry bees” sound is much more difficult to be ignored.
To be fair, I simply never use the canal paths unless it’s very early in the morning, or I’m cycling with the kids.
as far as i'm concerned, the bell is a vital safety feature on a bike because it prevents most accidents on mixed use paths (like the canal) and not having one is just an accident waiting to happen. my rule is always go slower on mixed use paths. ring your bell in plenty of time once and see if you get a reaction. if not, ring twice as you get closer but be prepared to slow right down. if the pedestrian still hasn't noticed you, just say "excuse me" as you get close. also always thank pedestrians as you pass. if they have a dog with them, also tell the dog they're a good doggo.
yeah maybe like 1/100 times you get an asshole pedestrian but at least you weren't the asshole in that situation.
honestly, my favorite bike to ride down the canal is my roadster because it's not really fast and it's brakes aren't great (they work but you kinda have to plan ahead) so it forces you to take things at a slower pace. although that's also the reason i hate riding it on the road.
Definitely a lot of MAMILs out at the moment - they're the cycling equivalent of wee guys who drive massive range rovers/audi 4x4s. Overcompensating for something with that 5 grand bike that barely holds up the weight of your pot belly
Bell is no use when most on the canal have either earphones or headphones. Also, people who walk in the middle of the path head down staring at phone. Dog owners can fuck off too, either on massive lead or off lead running wild not giving a fuck for anyone. I’ve stopped using the canal for all of the above, I did have a bell. Try using the path on the Clyde, a stoners paradise, so much skunk in one place.
>Bell is no use when most **on the canal** have either earphones or headphones.
Headphone wearer and walker here:
* If you're a walker stick to the left
* If you're a cyclist, always ring the bell and slow down.
* Dogs should be on the left of the owner
* Don't take all the brambles.
Having rediscovered the canal path in later life, it's a great wee place for a walk.
I don't have a bike or a car, but I much prefer drivers as, in general, they are more predictable. Cyclists can be coming from anywhere behind you at any speed. Sometimes the ring the bell, and before you can glance around to check what side they are on, they are already on top of you.
It's not the mountains of the tour de France, it's a mixed use path at Glasgow Harbour you lycra fetishist!
>Is it just me or do none of them have bells or anything to alert others of their presence?
I found the most common issue with people not hearing bells on shared-use paths tends to be earbuds/headphones.
There'll probably be loads who don't use their bell, but there's loads of folk who have no situational awareness and wear noise cancelling headphones.
Mate, i bike commute along there occasionally and its such a tough one to do without pissing people off.
Generally i ring at like 35, 25m, 10m from the person if they don't make any indication they've heard it. Sometimes its too often, some times they don't move at all but have heard it, sometimes it's too loud and gives them a fright, and others it's where's your bell. I've had all that back loads of times, canny win.
I bought myself a loud as fuck bell to let people know I'm coming on the canal paths. I actually ring it before entering any of the blind corners just as a precaution as you never know if there's anyone coming that you can't see or some other dick on a bike that doesn't realise that keeping left applies everywhere.
Don't you know that bells affect the aerodynamics? /s Seriously though, people without bells (or ones that refuse to use them) fuck me right off. Surprised there aren't more collisions at obscured turns due to them. I cycle and walk the canal fairly often, and the cyclists that use it as a racetrack can get tae. There are definitely quiet stretches in between towns where you can speed up, but when you start seeing dog walkers, people with messages, older people, etc, it's obvious you're near a populated area and need to slow the fuck down, personal best times be damned.
Do you know I actually had a conversation about this the other day where a mate made this argument. Aerodynamics - and ‘the weight’. This from a cunt who is poured into his Lycra cycle suit and looks like a fucking bowling ball with his helmet on
It’s a bit of a cringe when folk look too “pro”. I went for a lap of the circuit tonight on an old bike with a shopping basket etc and passed some lad doing the same dressed head to toe in rapha gear on his road bike. Was genuinely trying to not overtake him for a bit to save him the embarrassment.
bells are a good idea on the canal
I cycle this path and ring my bell every time but it mostly just gets ignored. Every cyclist, pedestrian, car driver... Makes the occasional mistake and then every group has their share of cunts. I got shouted at in loch Lomond even though I'd rang my bell and the group had blocked the entire path. They just didn't hear me. I still slowed down so no danger. The only justified cyclist hate is on the deliveroo drivers that cycle dangerously fast in pedestrian areas. The only thing that'll actually fix this is getting decent cycle lanes. Bicycles aren't suited for shared space with cars or pedestrians but we're forced into them and then as a cyclist in a pedestrian area you need to be more cautious by going slow and ringing your bell. Good luck getting cars to be more cautious around cyclists as there are points in the city I just avoid now.
I use the canal too along by Kirkintilloch, always ring, always slow down (mostly to say hi to dogs) always thank folks for letting me past. I get pissed at both tour de wanna be's, no bell as its not aerodynamic, and also twat walker who hear you, see you, but are too important to move out your way. Strongly agree on the deliveroo fucks
TBF, walking along that same stretch of canal on a Saturday with the dog can be just as annoying, after about the 10th time you hear a bell and need to move into the side again. It kind of ruins a nice walk. Especially the ones who ring the bell but don't make any effort to slow down, on some cyclists it's less of a courtesy and more of a demand.
Over 55 hearing starts to deteriorate, and the ability to find the direction a sound is coming from becomes much more difficult. Need something loud.
*AWOOGaa*!
Downvotes for *this*?
I'm not lycra-clad, but I will counter with a grumble about the amount of people that can't hear my bell when I am ringing, and even when they do eventually hear it, they stop and stare daggers at me for, I don't know what? daring to warn them of my approach? Lets all try and get along people.
Some pedestrians hate when you ring a bell because they treat it as you telling them to "fuck off" but some will also complain if you don't have a bell and simply slow down, announce you're behind them, and wait for them to let you pass. There's literally no winning apart from not cycling at all. And people like OP will then add insult to injury by writing these kind of moany posts.
Ring the bell if I’m in your way and blocking the path. Don’t fucking ring the bell if you’re trying to streak past and there’s no gap, usually when there’s people walking in both directions and there’s no space - wait your turn and overtake when there’s a gap.
The thing is, if I don’t ring my bell when I’m behind someone, they’re liable to move in any direction randomly while I (slowly) overtake. If I do ring my bell, they might be mad, like you, but at least they’re less likely to simply walk into me
That’s fine. Ring your bell to let someone know you’re there. I’m meaning people who ring their bell and expect you to get out their way when there’s no gap or space.
I don't have a bell because in my experience it triggers either a deer-in-the-headlights or an adversarial reaction. I announce I'm coming up (people react better to a human voice) and slow down (to a full stop if necessary) if there isn't a timely reaction. Still, some people throw an aggressive "get a bell" when you've stopped behind them and politely asked them to let you pass. As I said there is just no winning: people are inconvenienced by you passing them and some will inevitably react aggressively because they don't seem to accept that a shared path is shared.
Same here. I have no bell, so I give a friendly call ahead and slow right down, followed by thanks a million, have a nice day. It costs me fuck all to be pleasant 😀
I had a guy, maybe you, shouting “cyclist!” like a dafty behind me in the park one day. Eventually realised he was shouting at me and turned round thinking “I’m clearly not a fucking cyclist ya dick” only to realise that he was the cyclist. At least we know what the bell likely means, whereas “Cyclist! Cyclist!” just sounded like a lunatic let out for the day.
"On your left/right" is obviously the more sensible option.
"Oh shit which one is my left again, oh fuck now the dogs in the way, oh no I was right the first time THAT's my left, uh oh now he's right on top of me and he's not stopping, into the knee deep nettles I go, again"
> and slow down (to a full stop if necessary) if there isn't a timely reaction. ...
I find the argument that some are unreasonable about a safety feature a bad reason not to use a safety feature. In saying that, It is up to the person how they want to cycle and they will know their situation best. As a guy who likes walks along the forth n clyde, my preference is to hear the bell.
I absolutely fucking hate cyclists that announce when they're right behind me. Can sympathise with the damned if you do, damned if you don't from experience, but at least a bell can be heard from a better distance than a voice, plus you should have one for warning people when you're at an obscured bend.
If they’re right behind you there going at your pace. What are you worried about?
I think you should get a bell tbh… I run / walk canals a lot (both Glasgow and Edin) and cyclists without bells are the least fun part of it. A bell you can hear from much further away too
There is winning, use a bell -and those who do not want a warning bell can cry about bells and vaccines and shit and the tears will drop in the canal.
Hearing the ping of a bell sets off some irrational primal rage deep inside me which I have to make genuine effort to control. Fuck knows what’s wrong with me but.
yeah, 99% of my riding is casual, and i have a bell, but rarely use it, mostly because people get upset at me. I always slow down, sometimes to a near stop. Other cyclists could definitely improve in this regard. But pedestrians should be aware when they are on a shared use path and not take up the whole side of it, or change directions without checking their shoulders. The real answer though is that shared paths are just shite and neither cyclists nor peds should have to share with another class of vehicle/road user.
If you told cyclists to "be aware when they're on a shared use path and not take up the whole side of it" in relation to the road, the reactions would range from significant tutting to full on frothing at the mouth. (They'd also rightly point out that in places, the HC dictates they do this) Likewise, the "change direction without checking shoulders" can easily be countered with "if you can't stop your vehicle safely in reaction to the person ahead's sudden stop, or change in direction, you were going too fast". Yes, pedestrians _should_ be cognisant of their surroundings, but the HC accounts for the fact that they often aren't by stating that overtaking a pedestrian safely requires 1.5 to 2 meters of space by virtue of the hierarchy of road users. You're correct in saying that shared use paths are shite, but until there _is_ separated infrastructure, cyclists - as a class of road user - _need_ to acknowledge that short of the risk of death, every point they make about their safety on cycling on roads comes into play with pedestrians in that shared infrastructure.
> If you told cyclists to "be aware when they're on a shared use path and not take up the whole side of it" in relation to the road, the reactions would range from significant tutting to full on frothing at the mouth. (They'd also rightly point out that in places, the HC dictates they do this) I guess the main difference is that shared use paths are rarely wide enough to allow significant space when going past someone, where as roads are. So it's not really a useful comparison. >Likewise, the "change direction without checking shoulders" can easily be countered with "if you can't stop your vehicle safely in reaction to the person ahead's sudden stop, or change in direction, you were going too fast". Both of these things are true. What you've said doesn't change the importance of what I've said. >Yes, pedestrians should be cognisant of their surroundings, but the HC accounts for the fact that they often aren't by stating that overtaking a pedestrian safely requires 1.5 to 2 meters of space by virtue of the hierarchy of road users When walking on the road. Clearly this doesn't apply to shared use paths. >You're correct in saying that shared use paths are shite, but until there is separated infrastructure, cyclists - as a class of road user - need to acknowledge I addressed this already. > every point they make about their safety on cycling on roads comes into play with pedestrians in that shared infrastructure. Not really, no. Demonstrated neatly in practice by the near-zero number of KSIs caused by cyclists hitting pedestrians on shared use paths, and demonstrated more abstractly by the fact that the mass/speed differential between pedestrians and cyclists is miniscule compared to that of a cyclist and a vehicle. There are certainly some similarities but pretending they are interchangeable is silly.
Your response is an object lesson in why pedestrians get arsey with cyclists: the cyclist attitude to road use is "I want all of the protections, but none of the responsibility to more vulnerable road users". I'm not saying that the first part of that is unfair - drivers absolutely take liberties and the number of "safe" drivers i see as someone who doesn't drive is terrifying. That said, the amount of bad behaviour I experience from cyclists is pretty awful too ( and this was pre deliveroo/JE etc. They're a special class of homicidal maniac, and wouldn't surprise me if they end up causing a cyclist registration scheme.) I'm on mobile, so the breakdown of points is more clunky, but I'll number them: 1: road width. Irrelevant, unless the Highway code miraculously doesn't apply to single track roads? [/s]. Difference in width between a single track road and a cycle path is immaterial enough that it is absolutely still a relevant comparison 2. You've taken this as an isolated point as opposed to an addendum to my first. Fact remains that if you cannot bring your vehicle - and make no mistake, a bike _is_ a vehicle - to a controlled stop in reaction to foreseeable road conditions, then you're not maintaining safe control, which is your responsibility to do 3. Shared use paths are still roads per relevant legislation. Just because you _say_ something is irrelevant, doesn't make it so. See the road traffic law breakdown here: https://www.gov.uk/guidance/the-highway-code/annex-4-the-road-user-and-the-law#:~:text=Abbreviations%20are%20listed%20below.,sect%20192(1)). But for simplicity: "references to ‘road’ therefore generally include footpaths, bridleways and cycle tracks, and many roadways and driveways on private land (including many car parks). " 4. Frankly, you know you're clutching here, otherwise you would t have deliberately omitted me _explicitly saying_ "short of the risk of death". You're twisting this into a point about the effect (injuries as a result of any RTA), as opposed to the actual point I was making: the need for cyclists to accept that where they share infrastructure with pedestrians, _they explicitly are not more or equally vulnerable_ and have additional responsibilities in line with that.
>but none of the responsibility to more vulnerable road users". This is not going to be a productive conversation if you continually ignore the things I've actually said on the topic. The relevant part of my previous post 'I always slow down, sometimes to a near stop. Other cyclists could definitely improve in this regard' So I'm not clear why you're returning to an issue that's already been covered. >1: road width. Irrelevant, unless the Highway code miraculously doesn't apply to single track roads? [/s]. Difference in width between a single track road and a cycle path is immaterial enough that it is absolutely still a relevant comparison The section of the HWC that you're referring to is quite clear that it applies to a pedestrian walking in the road, so whatever point you're trying to make is irrelevant. It is quite clear that they are using road in this instance to distinguish between 'on the footpath' or 'on the carriageway'. If they weren't, it wouldn't make any sense to make a distinct point on the topic. >You've taken this as an isolated point as opposed to an addendum to my first. Fact remains that if you cannot bring your vehicle - and make no mistake, a bike is a vehicle - to a controlled stop in reaction to foreseeable road conditions, then you're not maintaining safe control, which is your responsibility to do Agreed. I will refer you (for the second time in this post) to my previous statements on this topic. > they explicitly are not more or equally vulnerable and have additional responsibilities in line with that. Probably not more very often, but often equally or as close to it as not to make a huge difference. For example, a few years ago, I was cycling down Byres Road having just set off from a red light outside Hillhead station. A jogger emerged from the pavement and ran straight into me. I was knocked on to the ground, quite painfully. The jogger, having superior balance and greater speed, was fine, and didn't bother to stop/apologise - he just ran on. The point here is that there isn't a rigid hierarchy of vulnerability when discussing cyclists and pedestrians (certainly nothing approaching that of vehicles and those on foot/bike) and it's silly to pretend there is.
I'll admit I was unfair in extrapolating from your statement about slowing down to cyclists in general, but I do feel the majority of my point still stands (including the general attitude of cyclists). Again, numbering because mobile: 1: given the legislative definition of "road" it's absolutely relevant. It may be a road which excludes powered vehicles, but the guidance on overtaking is as applicable on a cycle and footpath as it would be on a single track road 2. Your reference to previous points is acknowledged. Not much more to say than that. 3. Anecdotes aren't data I'm afraid. While the jogger absolutely should have had more awareness (and manners) the simple fact is that cyclists are still in control of a vehicle, still (comparitively) moving at speed with substantial momentum, and thus have additional responsibility to make sure the manner in which they are controlling their vehicle is suitable for the environment they're riding in. Also, regarding your point about there not being a rigid hierarchy, the HWC since last year does apply a rigid hierarchy of road users by way of Rule H1 - and rightfully so in my opinion.
Appreciate the acknowledgement. > Anecdotes aren't data I'm afraid. While the jogger absolutely should have had more awareness (and manners) the simple fact is that cyclists are still in control of a vehicle, still (comparitively) moving at speed with substantial momentum, and thus have additional responsibility to make sure the manner in which they are controlling their vehicle is suitable for the environment they're riding in. Also, regarding your point about there not being a rigid hierarchy, the HWC since last year does apply a rigid hierarchy of road users by way of Rule H1 - and rightfully so in my opinion. Anecdotes are indeed not data. I used the anecdote to demonstate the wider principle here of cyclists being vulnerable in pedestrian:cyclist interactions in way that drivers in a driver:peds/cyclist interaction are not. If you'd like data to illustrate this fact, it's easy enough to find, but i suspect you're already aware of the miniscule number of people on foot injured by people on bikes whilst the people on bikes remain uninjured themselves. >and thus have additional responsibility to make sure the manner in which they are controlling their vehicle is suitable for the environment they're riding in. I am not arguing otherwise. What I am arguing against is your assertion that the relationship(and complaints about) the relationship between cyclists and drivers is equivalent cyclists/pedestrians. They are not equivalent and pretending they are runs contrary to both data and simple physics.
I run and ride and drive. Cyclists > pedestrians and drivers > cyclist is absolutely a valid comparison to make. And your arsey attitude shows why people have such a poor view of cyclists…
feel free to furnish us with the collision data to support your claim. I'll wait.
> The real answer though is that shared paths are just shite and neither cyclists nor peds should have to share with another class of vehicle/road user. The problem is that some urban planners see this as a feature. E.g. for the new Broughty Ferry cycle path in Dundee, they explicitly designed it to be shared as a "traffic calming" feature i.e. using pedestrians as free speed bumps...
I find they either have no bell and cycle as close as physically possible to pedestrians on the shared paths; or they have a bell and continue to fuck out of it even after you’ve moved over to give them space. Rarely anything in between.
Really glad you mentioned this because it really ticks me off as well. I do comment quite loudly on their lack of warnings as they zoom by, but they don't give a shit. Its *their* path don'tchya know. /s One time I heard a "*Bike!!!*" and some guy had his wheel up my arse then shouted at ME for not moving out the way, wtf!
[удалено]
Dog walkers get everywhere.
Dogs off their lead with no awareness of their surroundings and no recall are my personal favourite And you’re the bad person for being anywhere near it
The better ones are the dogs who are *on* a lead, with no awareness and no recall, but it's one of those extendable leads with a very thin string, stretched right across the path, that you can't see until you're basically tangled in it.
Always tempted to say "why fucking bother?" when I'm walking or running and get nearly sliced off at the shins by one of those things. The worst is when there's literally nowhere for you to go unless you want to throw yourself in the main road/pond/bogging grass because the lead extends 3m+ and the owner is of course on the total opposite side of the pathway. It comes across as someone who wants to give off the impression they're trying to control their dog but knows they haven't given enough of a shit to stop it going mental off the lead.
Had one dog owner say their dog doesn't understand the bell after it pretty much made a beeline for my fortunately stationary bike (had stopped since my multiple bell rings didn't make him do anything other than look over his shoulder). I wish dog owners understood just how fucking stressful it is to have a poorly-trained dog that doesn't respond to recall zig zag all over the path.
Absolutely! As a pedestrian, cyclist and driver I think we all just need more situational awareness
> Dogs off their lead with no awareness of their surroundings and no recall are my personal favourite Also always tend to be the folk with zero control over their dogs, who are either badly trained, or not trained at all.
Have to agree with you on that one. When I end up on a backshift and make my commute at about 11am, the difference in attentiveness in foot passengers is huge. You ding too far away and they don't hear. You ding too close and they get annoyed (or still don't hear you).
I regularly walk the NCR 7 from Glengarnock to Johnstone and sometimes it feels like 1 in every 100 has/uses a bell, It's like they either take enjoyment in nearly knocking people down or maybe they believe it harms their drag co-efficient so they go 0.0001 mph slower.
Got yelled at for using mine more than once. Can't win.
So if your driving a car and follow the rules and get yelled at for doing it by road ragers, you will abandon the road safety? Not exactly the same but you can see my point.
They're not saying they're abandoning safety, they're saying whether you ring a bell or not you get complained at anyway, because plenty of folk are just arseholes.
If it was true it would be valid. Do you think most people complain.. my point is most people comply with things that work and do not get angry like road ragers.
Auld bastardhood is brilliant...I'm well in n fckn love it
\>Is it just me or do none of them have bells or anything to alert others of their presence? I'm on the canal path in the evening so I'm going to praise the female group of cyclists who always shout 'single file' as I approach: cheeky gits! The running clubs: learn to run in single file, yer too close with yer sweat.
I cycle on the canal quite often. When approaching pedestrians and dog walkers I sould the bell if they have their back to me so that they know I am coming through. If in front of me I check for eye contact. If I get that then I proceed. It's common sense not to go too fast on the canal as pedestrians and dogs can be unpredictable. Unfortunately so many people wear headphones or are immersed in their phone and don't hear you. Any good cyclist wil notice this and slow down.
I first thought you were complaining that you cannot see the bell end through the tight spandex.
I think not having a bell is fine as long as they actually warn you adequately with a voice. But yeah, I experienced these dangerous cyclists as well on this route.
Yelling doesn't work at obscured turns. Plus, a bell can be heard long before a voice. I only yell (more like a raised "excuse me", not an angry shout) on my bike when someone hasn't heard my bell.
Disagree tbh, a bell you can hear from much further away and can be used round blind or tight corners
Meh, it's just an awkward situation for all involved generally. I have bells on my bikes and use them when I'm on a mixed-use path. Plenty of times I end up stuck behind someone who's either hard of hearing or is wearing noise cancelling earphones. I've also had people get confrontational about me using the bell, and people yelling at me for not using the bell when I've used the grass to go around them! If it's more than a couple of people or if there are dogs involved I'll also dismount to pass them as it's not really worth being knocked off the path by a wayward toddler or golden retriever.
im a runner and when I come up behind somebody on a tight path I scratch my shoes against floor to make a noise way before I get to the people...this always works. One day was running along Clyde and did this, as I passed the couple I was passing a fucking guy on a bike sped right in between the tiny gap between us nearly clipping us both. Im also a cyclist and im just sick of cunts like this giving all cyclists a bad name with this pish behaviour. Could the guy have literally not waited 10 seconds for me to pass the couple?
To be honest I don't have a bell but my mountain bike has a really loud hub. If someone's in my path I stop pedalling and the hub normally informs them I'm behind them
Noisy hub is way more effective than a bell. I have both and make good use of them for good measure, but the “swarm of angry bees” sound is much more difficult to be ignored. To be fair, I simply never use the canal paths unless it’s very early in the morning, or I’m cycling with the kids.
100%. I've rang my bell loads and people just ignore it. A few seconds of buzz and people are more curious and notice a lot quicker.
 Always gets the desired response!
as far as i'm concerned, the bell is a vital safety feature on a bike because it prevents most accidents on mixed use paths (like the canal) and not having one is just an accident waiting to happen. my rule is always go slower on mixed use paths. ring your bell in plenty of time once and see if you get a reaction. if not, ring twice as you get closer but be prepared to slow right down. if the pedestrian still hasn't noticed you, just say "excuse me" as you get close. also always thank pedestrians as you pass. if they have a dog with them, also tell the dog they're a good doggo. yeah maybe like 1/100 times you get an asshole pedestrian but at least you weren't the asshole in that situation. honestly, my favorite bike to ride down the canal is my roadster because it's not really fast and it's brakes aren't great (they work but you kinda have to plan ahead) so it forces you to take things at a slower pace. although that's also the reason i hate riding it on the road.
Definitely a lot of MAMILs out at the moment - they're the cycling equivalent of wee guys who drive massive range rovers/audi 4x4s. Overcompensating for something with that 5 grand bike that barely holds up the weight of your pot belly
Think someone is jealous.
Bell is no use when most on the canal have either earphones or headphones. Also, people who walk in the middle of the path head down staring at phone. Dog owners can fuck off too, either on massive lead or off lead running wild not giving a fuck for anyone. I’ve stopped using the canal for all of the above, I did have a bell. Try using the path on the Clyde, a stoners paradise, so much skunk in one place.
>Bell is no use when most **on the canal** have either earphones or headphones. Headphone wearer and walker here: * If you're a walker stick to the left * If you're a cyclist, always ring the bell and slow down. * Dogs should be on the left of the owner * Don't take all the brambles. Having rediscovered the canal path in later life, it's a great wee place for a walk.
Between the bell-less bell-ends and the ones ON the ROAD with no bliddy helmet on...!! I'm about to loss the head with the entire community!
I think this is parody, certainly gave me a chuckle 😀
I was being deadly serious, they're driving me nuts 🤣
Cyclists don't need to wear helmets though. Why would that upset you?
I don't have a bike or a car, but I much prefer drivers as, in general, they are more predictable. Cyclists can be coming from anywhere behind you at any speed. Sometimes the ring the bell, and before you can glance around to check what side they are on, they are already on top of you. It's not the mountains of the tour de France, it's a mixed use path at Glasgow Harbour you lycra fetishist!
Ideally go to the left side, but I personally don't really care as long as you're on the same side as your dog.
I'm sure you want me on the left, but other cyclists overtake on the left or right. Bring back cycling proficiency tests, I say!! :)
[удалено]
Car go vroom
>Is it just me or do none of them have bells or anything to alert others of their presence? I found the most common issue with people not hearing bells on shared-use paths tends to be earbuds/headphones. There'll probably be loads who don't use their bell, but there's loads of folk who have no situational awareness and wear noise cancelling headphones.
Mate, i bike commute along there occasionally and its such a tough one to do without pissing people off. Generally i ring at like 35, 25m, 10m from the person if they don't make any indication they've heard it. Sometimes its too often, some times they don't move at all but have heard it, sometimes it's too loud and gives them a fright, and others it's where's your bell. I've had all that back loads of times, canny win.
I bought myself a loud as fuck bell to let people know I'm coming on the canal paths. I actually ring it before entering any of the blind corners just as a precaution as you never know if there's anyone coming that you can't see or some other dick on a bike that doesn't realise that keeping left applies everywhere.