upvote
Better segregation of cyclists and pedestrians into their own spaces. The bell shouldn't be something that you use regularly.
reply
Depending on how much traffic there is, combining them is fine.
reply
Yes, but I would consider it somewhat rude to use the bell in a space where both bikes and pedestrians are allowed. If it would be required to be used regularly, I'd say the path is badly designed.

I used to commute to work by bike in ~1M city in Europe, mostly on dedicated bike lanes, but some shared, and had just the smallest, barely audible bell, only because it was required by law. I don't remember using it much at all. I don't know what the problem is. Maybe the Londoners should take a good look at themselves.

reply
Different folks have different preferences.

I agree that on a footpath pedestrians should be treated as having priority.

A semi-common way I use my bell: when on a shared footpath with plenty of space to take over, I often use my bell when I'm still ten meters away, so that I don't give pedestrians are heart attack by suddenly dashing right past them.

(I have a nice ding dong bell. They don't seem to mind. It also helps that I often have a cheerful five year old in the back.)

reply
But some bikers probably also use anc headphones, no?
reply
Seen cyclists with overear anc headphones cycling on the road in london. Absolutely mad.
reply
I do that. This was never a problem, as the ANC ones I used don't cancel every sound the same way.

For example, I can go into datacenter and it will cancel all the datacenter noise(aside for when air blows directly into mic, it overdrives it) but I can still hear what other person is saying.

Also I used them to generally listen to podcast so there was no wall of music to go thru, so sirens and such were easily discernable

reply
You do you but as a cyclist you are super vulnerable to all manner of things and I'd never want to give up that kind of awareness.

If you listen carefully you can usually hear a cyclist behind you who may want to pass or is passing you, and having headphones probably makes that a lot harder

reply
>I do that. This was never a problem

The most problematic people in traffic are never aware that they are the problem.

reply
Do you also think drivers with windows blocking sounds and their stereo blasting are mad?
reply
ofc they are
reply
deleted
reply
People shouldn't really be walking around in public with ANC on. It's not safe. Not a simple problem to solve except maybe to inform people better upon buying/setting up ANC-enabled devices.
reply
Why are they walking around with ANC, you think? Maybe the sound of traffic (cars). They're also the ones posing the danger to cyclists and pedestrians. The solution is simple.
reply
or cyclists should have their own lanes, pedestrians shouldn't walk on them - and vice versa. and if you're stuck behind someone slow just overtake them when you can.

Safe or not - it is up to individual to decide if it is worth the risk.

reply
"Not a simple problem to solve" feels like a bit of an understatement.
reply
Should people with hearing impairment also avoid walking around?
reply
People with a hearing impairment are usually not impairing one of their senses with content competing for their attention
reply
Nope. They get special treatment; and that's fine.
reply
I don't see how they can get "special treatment", the difference between someone who couldn't hear the bell because they cannot and someone who just wasn't paying enough attention to react in time isn't obvious without questioning them. Cyclists should simply learn to share shared infrastructure and be careful when passing people instead, because they can't know if that person is aware of them in time and going to react in a predictable way.
reply
The sense of entitlement of cyclists knows no bounds. If cars are liable for running over cyclists then cyclists must be liable for running over pedestrians.

I used to live in a city where I would walk everywhere but I had the constant fear of cyclists running over me because they would drive all over the pavements without any regard for pedestrians. Imagine walking and having to look around all the time. I find it amusing how people in websites like this one talk about how we have to be very afraid of cars when the true terror, at least for me, were cyclists.

reply
>>If cars are liable for running over cyclists then cyclists must be liable for running over pedestrians.

They are though(at least here in the UK) - a guy was convinced of manslaughter for hitting a pedestrian on a bike just last month. In general the rule is that the person in charge of a bigger/heavier vehicle is the responsible party in almost all collisions.

reply
And when you must walk with your small dog on a section of road where suddenly high speed e-cyclists zoom past you, now that's constant terror. At times you really get killer ideas.
reply
On the other hand, I hate it when I'm on my bike on a bike path, and someone walks their dog, leash fully extended across the bike path, they are looking down on their phone and wearing headphones. Absolute selfishness.
reply
On bike paths, totally agree with you. On shared paths, nobody owes you that speed.
reply
...what speed? No one mentioned any speed.
reply
Fines. No one should cross roads/paths randomly, with or without headphones.

One large fine, and people will learn.

reply
No, they won't, punishment is never better than good design that incentivises and directs how something ought to be used.

Jaywalking is even a misdemeanor in some areas of the USA, it doesn't stop it from happening at all.

reply
That would never work. Have you never been mindlessly walking and stepped on a bike way without realizing? Cities are for people after all. There's also so many places where bikes and pedestrians share the way, like roads under construction, and shared streets. We need to stop thinking of cities as these perfect automated places where humans are not welcome.
reply