Bike trail cyclists seem to come in two types - those who warn of their approach before overtaking and those who just go blasting past. Of the former there are two sub-types: bell ringers (or horn honkers) and shouters (as in, shouting something like "bike" or "passing"). I'm generally a bell ringer who sometimes likes to throw in the odd vocal warning as well.
I'm interested in the response of others to pre-pass warnings. So a few weeks ago I was pleased to find a blog entry entitled "The Meaning of Bicycle Bells", in which the author Andrew Hammel noted:
As I found out, bicycle etiquette is different in Germany (or at least in my part of Germany) than it is in the U.S. If you can bicycle past someone and leave a meter between you and them, you just do it without saying anything. If it's going to be somewhat closer, you may wish to make a sound or announce "bicycle" (Fahrrad), so they know not to make any sudden movements as you ride past.
You ring the bell only when the people walking on the trail have to move in order to let you ride by. That is, you will hit them, or will have to stop, if they don't move to the side.
This is intriguing - along with the additional comments about other cultures added by visitors. I don't think it's possible to make a blanket statement about bicycle bell use in Australia.
Or perhaps the only comment that I can make is that Australians seem a bit confused about bike bell etiquette.
"Thank you!"
My overwhelming impression is that pedestrians (and other cyclists for that matter) on shared pathways do want some warning from cyclists before they pass. This is a totally subjective observation: I give everyone I pass a warning bell and I often get a cheery wave or a "thank-you" in return. This suggests that my gesture is appreciated.
So what's the confusion here? It's over the meaning of a bicycle bell; people seem to equate a bike bell with a car horn, in the sense that the latter is often used to express anger or to punctuate the delivery of abuse. On very rare occasions a warning bell elicits an angry or aggressive response from another path user who interprets the ringing of a bike bell in this way - the equivalent of shouting "Get out of my f@0ing way!"
Stories from the trail
On one of these rare occasions when I copped an angry response to my bell I stopped and asked what problem was. The pedestrian told me that I'd disturbed his reverie (or words to that effect) and that he was already as far across on the path as it was possible to go. I seem to recall he said something about cyclists wanting to claim the whole path. I assured him that this wasn't the case and that my bell was only a courtesy measure to avoid startling him as I went past. He evidently hadn't thought of this and was quite pleased that I'd taken the time to stop and explain.
However there's not much you can do with another response that Super-Gran once received: "You shouldn't ring your bell because it startles me!" Hmmm. Perhaps you should fit yourself with rearview mirrors then?
To be[ll] or not to be[ll]
Despite my observation that path users seem to favour hearing a warning, very few cyclists seem to use the bell (or even call out). Here's my theory to explain why: cyclists actually think they are being polite. And it's the same problem as above: cyclists are stuck on the misconception that ringing a bike bell is roughly equivalent to rudely blasting someone with a car horn.
But it's not
On the road cyclists are constantly vulnerable to a fast-moving car or truck zooming by in the too-close-for-comfort range. If nothing else, it makes for a very nasty surprise. Yet on the shared pathways, bicycles as the heavier and faster vehicles do fundamentally the same thing to pedestrians. I'd have thought more cyclists would have had empathy for the slower moving "vehicle" when they get onto the pathways.
Of course, the difference in this comparison is that at least you can usually hear the car coming whereas bikes are fast and silent. Which is why a ringing bike bell is not the same as a blasting car horn: it's not saying "Get out of my f@0ing way!", it's saying something like "Look out - here I come!"
My other theory
Of course, it's also possible that non-ringing cyclists are a bit embarrassed to use their bell. It can seem like a childish sort of thing to do - Hammel reflects this thinking in his discussion with the German bike store owner:
"A bicycle bell? I haven't had a bicycle bell on my bicycle since I was ten years old. It'll probably fall off, anyway."
But it's not long before he reasons:
…since I've got a bell on my bicycle, I might as well use it. When I came up behing people on the sidewalk or on a trail, I gave them a friendly little ding!
And it really is that easy. Sure you feel like a dickhead for a little while but it's not long before it becomes a habit and you're sending a "friendly little ding" to dogs and kids and pigeons (actually, not all that friendly when it comes to pigeons!)
Irritation or injury?
I prefer to think that it's either misplaced politeness and/or embarrassment at doing something so "childish" that makes many cyclists forget the humble ol' bike bell. Personally I tinkle the bell at everyone - sure some people might get irritated by it but not half as irritated as they'd be if they accidentally stepped into my path because they didn't know I was there.
I've also found that when I ring the bell I sometimes get given a few extra centimetres of space (and I know that when I'm given a warning from behind I always give a bit of space and keep on as straight a line as possible), which can make all the difference for safe overtaking on some of our uncomfortably narrow trails.
And speaking of narrow trails, when it comes to staying out of trouble on blind corners, a bell can't be beaten.
12 December 2006
I note almost identical sentiments by Elly Blue at BikePortland.org:
A bell can be understood by anyone, of any age, in any language. Widespread bell use increases traffic safety and road sharing far more effectively than expensive infrastructure or a public education campaign.
Bell or not, it's inexcusable not to warn people — pedestrians or slower cyclists — when you're going to pass them with less than a couple of feet to spare. It's not only legally required to yield to traffic in front of you, it's good manners, and good public relations for cyclists.
And, like me, Elly favours the old but reliable el cheapo bell with the two-tone ring.
Comments
A very interesting take on bells Treadly. I must admit I fall into the category of only using a bell, or more usually a word or 2 of warning, if I haven't enough room to pass safely. The reasons are twofold: 1/ when I have used a bell, people usually turn to look toward the sound and their feet follow, this means they actually cross across my path more than they were before (it may still be an unusual sound on the pedestrian/cycle paths in Sydney) 2/ an increasing number of people are walking, jogging, running, with headphones on and can't hear the bell anyway! It would be interesting to compile a list of people's experiences with bike bells.
Hey pedaller - at least you've got a bell on your bike…
I know that turn-and-look phenomenon all too well but I doesn't seem to happen very much to me. (Having said that, it did happen this morning: a rider in front of me rang his bell and the pedestrian did the turn-and-look thing, so I thought she'd be OK when I came past. But no, I rang my bell and she had to check again that it actually was a bike. Odd.)
Maybe there is a difference across the country - in Melbourne most path users generally tend keep to the left, so presumably they expect to be overtaken on the right. If that convention isn't as strong elsewhere then there could be an increased tendency to check which side the bike will pass. Or maybe it is just a question of familiarity, as you suggest. Anyway I'll have to test these hypotheses the next time I'm riding in another city.
In any case, I find it's a judgment call. There are some very rare exceptions where I don't ring my bell and those are circumstances where a turn-and-look would be a dangerous thing for all concerned. I know I've done that a few times but not all that often - I can't even think of a recent example. (It may be that I've learned to bell earlier in situations where this is likely to be a problem.)
The distinct advantage that a bell (and to a lesser extent a bike horn) has over voice is that the sound is distinct and unmistakable - regardless of the connotations that I discussed above, nothing says "bike" as unambiguously as a bell. Not even saying "bike" is as clear - the other person might mishear the word, might not understand, or might not be quick enough in making the connection between the word and a fast-moving two-wheeler. After all everyone has a voice - you might be on foot, on blades or a skateboard, or even dropping in by parachute but you've still got your voice. Whereas only a bike has a bike bell (usually!) and that's what makes it unambiguous.
As for that headphones thing - GRR! (And let's not forget people riding with headphones on either.) I don't assume that just because someone is wearing headphones they can't hear - in fact some of the "thank-you" and waves that I get are from iPod-toting power-walkers. I find a louder bell works a treat.
Perhaps we should mention that a bell or horn, like a helmet, is compulsory?
The "keep to the left" idea would work very well .... if everyone (including bikes) adhered to it. This would upset our morning walkers immensley as they tend to cluster in groups that span the entire width of the shared paths. Not to mention groups of cyclists who I have also seen doing much the same thing.
In Sydney, many of the early shared paths are quite narrow (or overgrown with grass so they have become narrow), so it can be a bit of a squeeze anyway, so the only place for everyone to be is in the centre. The strange thing is, that after all these years, I have only just come to the realisation.
Treadly,
I'm a mountain biker new to commuting. Traffic was heavy on my way home yesterday in Okinawa, Japan, so I broke the rules and rode the sidewalk (Okinawans don't really believe in road shoulders). The sidewalk narrows on the best downhill portion of the ride, and I found myself coming up fast on a man walking in the same direction. Generally, a quick shout -- yes, I'm a "shouter" -- of, "On your right" would keep the "crunchies" out from under my wheel, but it only occurred to me now to learn the phrase in Japanese. With that option gone, the choices were: slow down – a cardinal sin that I immediately dismissed, or slide past him and hope he didn't suddenly change direction. Thinking back, I could've given the old guy a heart attack.
The choice was simple at the time, but got more complex as I recalled reading Andrew's post last week -- which I admittedly enjoyed for its humor the first time. The advantage of the "shout" over the bell is that you can tell them exactly where you're coming from vs. the omnidirectional bell that forces them to turn-and-look. The bad part about shouting is that you need to know the language to be effective!
Admittedly, I am one of those who'd be embarassed to even be seen with a bell on my bike, but much of your logic is undeniable. On the other hand, where would this world be today if some of us did not let our masculinity interfer with rational thinking!
Thanks for your thoughts.
Good story Spider Rider - that's an extreme example of the receiver not understanding your shout!
It's horses for courses (cycles for trails?) isn't it? You deal with situations as they arise. Sometimes I bell and shout, sometimes (especially if I've been drafting behind someone for awhile) I reckon a shout is enough - and sometimes you've just got to shut up and go for it.
As pedaller pointed out above, where we live (and in plenty of other jurisdictions, I suppose) a bell is supposed to be compulsory equipment on a bicycle. That doesn't really bother me one way or another as long as riders show a little bit of common courtesy by giving some kind of warning. Mind you, being compelled to have a bell on your handlebar goes some way toward eliminating the embarrassment factor.
Oh yeah, and good on you for commuting on two wheels. It's the only way to go.
Indeed, a bell is supposed to be compulsory but compared to a helmet it's not as glaringly obvious that someone doesn't have one!
That's interesting - keep to the left works pretty well on the Melbourne trails (in my experience, anyway). Of course there are mobs of walkers and runners (and yes, cyclists) who spread themselves across the trail but in general people do tend to the left. And they respond pretty well to a bell - usually the people who are out on the right hand side crowd-in and let you past.
I generalise of course, but that's the common pattern I've found. I've even seen groups of mums with prams (umm, on those mornings where I've been running particularly late) traveling in single file (probably to the cafe down at the nursery!)
The main exception to this is behind Federation Square and along bloody Birrarung Marr - where pedestrians wander randomly and (for some strange reason) seem to go deaf to all forms of warning. It is an open public space but a bit of attention to not getting run down wouldn't go astray. Tennis fans during the Australian Open seem to be the worst. And frankly, I just can't wait for the Commonwealth Games (to be over).
As for narrow pathways, don't get me started on that! Although the Beer Snob has recently had a good response to politely complaining about overgrown vegetation. But as he found out, it can be difficult to know who to complain to!
Which reminds me, there's a section of my commute route where some bushes are badly in need of trimming - I just need to work out who to report it to...