Discussion

Škoda DuoBell: A bicycle bell that outsmarts even smart headphones

ai_slop_hater: How about cyclists stop cycling on sidewalks?

madjam002: A lot of footpaths in Europe are designated paths that are shared with cyclists

cool-RR: Begun, the noise-cancelling wars have.

JensKnipper: What if they are shared?

Faaak: not all of them do

fnands: For a moment I thought this was an April fools joke product.Pretty cool though!

rmoriz: Reminds me of old Reich bells http://reich-cycle-bells.de and their „Trillerwerk“ (trill sound)

Oras: Over engineering in real life, solving lack of common sense by introducing a solution where the cyclist is paying.I think the solution is nice for sure, but solving the wrong problem.

dbg31415: Just when you thought interacting with cyclists couldn't get any more annoying... introducing the Škoda DuoBell! New from Mattel!

leni536: So it's tuned to a specific frequency at 780Hz? And that defeats all/most ANC?

croemer: Video version which has more detail than the text: https://youtu.be/zDaVPfpQvPI?is=sSyjXf07r9cg9r4YBit cringe marketing though.

tossandthrow: People don't tend to wear anc headsets when walking the Forrest.Maybe the issue is the noise in the cities?

rmoriz: The presentation looks like marketing overkill, their solution looks pretty simple. It‘s just two trills „Trillerwerk“ bells combined. It was the standard in Germany until the late 1990s https://youtu.be/-mW7dWHDivo

eru: That guy should lead with the sound check. :)

fnands: Eh, it's pragmatic.It's replacing a problem you can't solve (human stupidity), with one you can (a better bell).

paganel: Why can't the cyclists slow down when they see that there's a human obstacle in front of them?

bdavbdav: In the roads near my office (central London), which are seldom used by cars, several pedestrians at a time very often walk down the road or diagonally cross the road head in phone. You can get very close and the still don’t notice (the slower you are, the quieter you become so even less likely to hear you).I’m not sure arguing against a bell is helpful - people need to look on any road, especially with the advent of quiet electric cars.

yladiz: What is the right problem that should be solved here?

exitb: Better segregation of cyclists and pedestrians into their own spaces. The bell shouldn't be something that you use regularly.

Etheryte: A reminder that a gun [0] would also work as a bicycle bell that works despite noise-cancelling headphones.[0] https://xkcd.com/1217/

Raed667: when the alternative is "everyone doing the right thing" this solution starts to look like the pragmatic approach

9dev: I don't know where you're from, but in Germany for example, there are countless situations where cyclists and pedestrians share the same space, or pedestrians can (or just do…) cross bicycle lanes. I'm a very law-abiding cyclist since witnessing a few horrible accidents, and yet I encounter situations with headphone-wearing pedestrians regularly. Often I'll ring my bell to no avail, until driving right up to them, and they still won't hear me. This is really frustrating; I'm definitely in the market for this.

ai_slop_hater: I am aware that most countries do not have dedicated roads for cyclists, but that doesn't mean that cyclists should be using sidewalks. When I go out and walk on the sidewalk, I expect to be able to just walk safely without having to think about potential riders of bicycles or other things that people ride on sidewalks.

Topfi: At least here in Austria, I honestly rarely, if ever, see them do that. Either roads or dedicated/mixed designated cycle paths. We do have enforcement even against cyclists, though more than anything, that catches all the "unlocked" e-bikes, because cycling on the sidewalks is not a thing anyone does.Even with bikes being off the sidewalk, there is need for a quick way of getting others pedestrians attention.

xvedejas: Over-engineering? It's a fully mechanical bike bell that's made slightly differently. It's a very established and straightforward technology.

keybored: Edit: Since people seem to go either way: It is my understanding that in my part of the world (in Scandinavia) cyclists do not have the right of way on sidewalks (which means they can’t bell people away). They also (and I know this one) do not have the right of way while cycling across road crossings. Something that most cyclists, in my experience, violate all the time.Quite. It drives me up the wall when cyclists not only use the sidewalk close enough to me to practically graze me (pedestrian), but expect me to actively pay attention and yield to them. Use the road, dummy (there are scarce few bicycle lanes).I use regular headphones (not over-ear and not really noise canc.) on the sidewalk but take them off when I am crossing the street. And I of course am mindful of other pedestrians. But I’m not gonna take them off because some two-wheeler thinks they can ram into me unless I jump out of the way on the sidewalk.

andrepd: Agreed. Make bike paths and people cycle on bike paths. Crazy stuff I know!

andrewshadura: The problem with headphones is not noise cancellation. It’s the fact they play music.My regular Widek bell penetrates ANC, but when there’s music, ANC or not, it’s hard to hear. I’m struggling to believe the claims this bell is going to be significantly better.

9dev: Every single person that stops and looks due to this is a win in my book.

Phemist: The real problem is that cyclists and pedestrians apparently in some countries share space commonly enough that this is necessary?In the Netherlands, bicycle utopia, I cannot remember the last time I used my bell to alert a pedestrian of my existence. Granted, I never cycle in Amsterdam, but this is a special location where high-powered ship horns are probably required.Regarding ANC, I naturally turn it off while cycling on my Bose Quiet Comfort II, as the ANC will try (and fail) to cancel the noise from the wind.

gsinclair: There’s more than one issue. It’s not wrong to try to solve one of them.

sdevonoes: I’m more afraid of cyclists than of cars. I know exactly where the road starts and end, I know there are traffic lights drivers and pedestrians usually respect, so it’s very unlikely that I can get hit by a car. And Im talking about myself, not about the average person (I know stats may say otherwise)But cyclists can ride in the pedestrian lane, bike lanes and pedestrians lanes are not easily distinguishable (if you are visiting a new city/country for example, and/or the painting of the lanes disappear over time) compared to roads, you typically can hear cars/motorbikes coming (though with electric cars that’s less common) while bikes are very silent, and last but not least, typically there is certain hierarchy when it comes to cars and pedestrians (at least in Europe): pedestrians come first. That’s not the case with bikes (which based on my experience, they share the same level of importance with pedestrians in the streets)

djtango: Generally I am pretty accommodating of pedestrians and give them a wide berth but sometimes they do some pretty obnoxious things like walk six abreast or cut right in front of you erratically without looking.I have very little time for people who freely absolve themselves of their personal responsibility to be aware of their surroundings and we shouldn't be encouraging people to zone out of society just so they can consume more.

Oras: Fines. No one should cross roads/paths randomly, with or without headphones.One large fine, and people will learn.

piva00: 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.

eru: > I am aware that most countries do not have dedicated roads for cyclists, but that doesn't mean that cyclists should be using sidewalks.Huh? Germany has signs on same shared pavements that tell you that by law your bike needs to be on there, not on the road.Are you suggesting people break the law over your preferences?

ai_slop_hater: Then it's a stupid law. But from the image that other commenter gave, it does look like Germany has space that is clearly intended for cyclists, and I have no issue with that. I have issue with instances when people cycle on sidewalks intended for pedestrians.

lopis: 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.

staindk: 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.

frereubu: "Not a simple problem to solve" feels like a bit of an understatement.

laydn: Next challange: Place a camera in front of the bike that scans approaching pedestrians. Calculate their head position and trajectory. Use directional speakers and focused sound beams to focus the ~780Hz sound towards the head(s) of the pedestrian(s). Now that you are not bothering the environment as much, you can increase the volume as well.

codethief: I would love that but not so much for pedestrians as for cars that don't see me on my bike. Ideally, the "bell" would automatically honk at them very loudly when they get too close.

eru: Some people wear them there.

tossandthrow: As perfectly captured in "don't _tend_ to ..."

ahmedfromtunis: I think it's time for some sort of a safety standard for a sound frequency to be reserved exclusively for alarm/alert use and that ANC systems have to let through.It goes without saying, use of said frequency should be prohibited for other purposes, especially marketing.

Ilikesoda112: this sounds like an amazing idea, the govt should introduce laws so that the companies do this

Klaster_1: Should people with hearing impairment also avoid walking around?

keybored: > I'm a very law-abiding cyclist since witnessing a few horrible accidents, and yet I encounter situations with headphone-wearing pedestrians regularly. Often I'll ring my bell to no avail, until driving right up to them, and they still won't hear me. This is really frustrating; I'm definitely in the market for this.I’m guessing some law (law-abiding) gives you the right to bother people who are using their own feet instead of wheels because you want to pass them and they should have to actively watch out for you and yield to you? Okay, that part is fine. But I don’t see how it is nice or, I dunno, ethical.In my experience (in my locale) as a cyclist you either give pedestrians a wide enough berth, dismount so that you can pass them if it is crowded and there is no passage, or use the vehicular road.I remember violating this one time when I belled someone that I wanted to pass on the sidewalk. But I was a child at the time. Even more self-centered than I am now.These seeming rules for yielding to cyclists are worse than the laws and norms when cars interact with bicycles, by the way. At least where I am: cars never honk cyclists. They have to wait for them or find a window to pass them safely. They can’t honk them into the ditch or something.

lifestyleguru: Living in a city you cannot stand so much that you wear noise cancelling headphones at all times. Commuting to work that you hate and manoeuvring between zombies looking at their phones, wearing noise cancelling headphones, and occasional cars recklessly opening doors or joining the traffic without looking in the mirrors. You even forgot the original goal of saving money because the rent eats 50% of the net salary and work eats every will to live. Thanks for reminding me to stay away.

gozzoo: as soon they do that all kind of companies will start abusing it, for example the sound of all smart phone notification will use exactly that frequency

linzhangrun: I believe devices intended to block necessary external environmental sounds should be prohibited while driving, including cycling.Remember that a horn is a safety feature.

phantomathkg: It is pedestrian who are wearing the ANC to remove the noise outside.

codethief: So where can I buy this thing?

ewidar: It's not about the cyclists wearing ANC headsets (which is already prohibited at least in Euro countries), but about pedestrians wearing them. Another problem altogether.

distances: In effect they are, even if not directly. There are requirements to stay aware of your surroundings. If you cause an accident by blocking all sounds, I totally can see insurance companies claiming this is your own responsibility and refusing to cover.

wateralien: what

fnands: This is more aimed to warn pedestrians who wear ANC headphones. Should people be prohibited from wearing headphones while walking?

KeplerBoy: That's the interesting bit. Is this a known / agreed upon feature of ANC headphones or just a property of a specific iteration of let's say airpods?

djtango: In Singapore, cyclists are generally expected to use the pavement and share it with pedestrians.

Phemist: Which, seems to me, is the actual problem that should be solved.

lifestyleguru: More or less at the time when electric bicycles weighing over 20kg and moving over 30kmh started to drive on sidewalks, I started to avoid living in big cities.

zielmicha: I think this is a really bad idea unless paired with some regime that penalizes inappropiate use of alarms - and most societies don't treat noise pollution as a real problem. For example, people honk all the time even when there are no safety issues. Or have misconfigured home/car alarms. Outlawing using ANC for blocking "fake alarms" only makes the problem worse.

nslsm: 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.

Mashimo: But some bikers probably also use anc headphones, no?

djtango: Seen cyclists with overear anc headphones cycling on the road in london. Absolutely mad.

djtango: People with a hearing impairment are usually not impairing one of their senses with content competing for their attention

Freak_NL: Nope. They get special treatment; and that's fine.

eru: Depending on how much traffic there is, combining them is fine.

exitb: 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.

thejohnconway: As a cyclist in London, I’ve hit one pedestrian: they stepped backward(!) into a cycle lane. I had nowhere to go, as there was a curb on the other side. Pedestrian behaviour is just totally wild with respect to cycle lanes, a lot of them are just totally oblivious. If you cycle, you will come across people walking along or stepping into dedicated cycle lanes several times during the average commute.

9dev: > I’m guessing some law (law-abiding) gives you the right to bother people who are using their own feet instead of wheels because you want to pass them and they should have to actively watch out for you and yield to you? Okay, that part is fine. But I don’t see how it is nice or, I dunno, ethical.No. There are just people who will walk on a designated bicycle lane because they haven't seen the signage, are ignorant or careless about it, or will just cross it to get somewhere else. All while wearing ANC headphones. This isn't about bothering someone, but warning them. It's really no different from someone jaywalking without seeing you, and honking to make them aware of that. Or are you supposing you'd just break and wait until they're finished crossing the street?

PunchyHamster: Oh great, cyclist gonna annoy me even in headphones

mirpa: Yes, company Škoda is from Czech Republic where we have shared-use paths for cyclists and pedestrians. It is not "necessary". You should not be wearing noise canceling headphones while being in traffic - it makes you more liable in case of accidents.

joe_mamba: I dislike this smug gloating attitude of your comment. Not everyone lives in the Netherlands. For some of those that don't live there, this could be a game changer and life saver since its easier to buy a bell than wait for your city to build you dedicated cycle lanes.Personally, I see no use for this bell since in Austria bicycles share the space with cars and trams, which could be more dangerous than pedestrians, and what I would need is a bicycle bell that could penetrate car enclosures so that drivers would get off their phones and pay attention to the roads.Yes, I know, ideally there should be dedicated cycle lanes only for bicycles but the city isn't gonna do that anytime soon since that would mean eliminating car lanes witch would be political suicide, so a bell would be an instant life saver.

inejge: > Why can't the cyclists slow down when they see that there's a human obstacle in front of them?They usually do. (The considerate and/or non-confrontational ones. There are always idiots, and people have the tendency to remember negative outliers and project their behavior on the group as a whole, which is unfortunate.) However, slowing down isn't the whole story. Riding a non-motorized bicycle is much easier if the rider can keep moving, however slowly, so it would be considerate in turn for the pedestrian to step aside and let the cyclist pass, if possible. A distracted pedestrian can be warned by a bell.Separately, delivery riders as a category have an incentive to ride as quickly as possible, which is a recipe for conflict. Removing that incentive means removing or completely reimagining the service. I don't think that anybody has a solution or mitigation at present.

patates: Draw a line, say this is for bicycles, pedestrians and cars have no business here, and bikes have no business being on any other lane as long as these exist.When bikes have to go through areas where people walk freely, they need to limit their speed to a walking pace.People should not wear headphones (noise-cancelling or not) when going through traffic as pedestrians. Take them off when crossing!People should not hear loud music when driving - max is normal speaking voice level. Bike drivers should never hear any music, let alone wearing headphones. Behind-ear speakers on low could be a compromise.Hey, we just solved 90% of the accidents.

adriand: There are often a LOT of human obstacles, and we have places to be! I slow down a bit but I don’t have a lot of patience for total unawareness. I don’t find this to be an issue with riding in the city because I ride on the road or in bike lanes. But when I go trail riding, it’s very annoying when people take up the trail and do not hear or react to my bell. Sometimes the situation is such that it is difficult to stop or evade the person, such as during a technical descent. If you’re out on the woods, there is really no excuse not to be aware of your surroundings.

mememememememo: I need a noise canceller canceller canceller.

keybored: I totally agree in the context of bicycle lanes.Sorry. Apparently I didn’t your comment carefully enough.

jeroenhd: I don't know why, but sometimes this is done intentionally.In my (Dutch) city, there is this infuriating piece of road where the bicycle path suddenly gets routed onto the kerb, intentionally mixing bikes and pedestrians. I believe the theory is that bikes will go slower so pedestrians don't need to worry about crossing the road as much or something.Predictably, lots bikes are taken by surprise, either brake hard and suddenly or fly through pedestrians (who the biker thinks are in their bike lane, because they would be two meters earlier).In my experience, when bikes and pedestrians meet, one of the two groups is in the wrong place and should be watching out/slowing down and waiting.The example video shows various instances of pedestrians walking in bike lanes (and seemingly being surprised at the sudden appearance of a bike there). You can't fix stupid, but at least you can tell them to get off the bike path.

soco: No honk in Switzerland, some honk in Romania, all honk in India. There's no one rule to rule them all.

Phemist: I don't mean to disagree that there are situations where this is useful. I'm just trying to offer the perspective from a situation where the root cause as I see it has been fixed (to a high degree).The OP seemed to suggest that people wearing ANC headgear should stop doing so, but both the bell and the ANC-wearing pedestrians are a non-issue in my lived experience.It would be a shame if these "cyclist-pedestrian ANC-wars" distract from the real issue, that cyclists are not, but should be, a fully emancipated participant in traffic and infrastructure should be designed with cars (to a degree), bicyclists AND pedestrians in mind.

venzaspa: I'm often a pedestrian and I've been known to walk into the road where there are bikes and cars also.

47282847: > some regime that penalizes inappropiate use of alarmsLegally, use of horns in traffic is restricted, and abuse can be punished. Doesn’t keep people from honking all the time.

soco: This only leaves open how to enforce all of it without everybody shouting domestic terror.

paganel: Sure is helpful, because it goes like this: pedestrians first -> then cyclists -> then motorists.You may notice that in this worldview (one which I find very hard to argue against) cyclists should give priority to pedestrians, no questions asked. I don't care about fancy bells or whatever, no-one takes those into consideration even when we (us, pedestrians, that is) can hear them because, and I repeat, cyclists are not as important as pedestrians are.

tpm: You may not care about fancy bells but you will care about loud honking close to your ears in my very recent experience from the streets of Shanghai. You don't have absolute priority just because you are a pedestrian.> Why can't the cyclists slow down when they see that there's a human obstacle in front of them?Because if the space is limited and they actually want to get somewhere, they just don't have time for that? And slowing down often means stopping and causing a traffic jam.Note that I mostly agree with what you wrote (and I give priority to pedestrians when I'm riding my bike) but there are different situations that have to be taken into account.

0x3f: Do horns and bells really prevent accidents?In order for e.g. a horn to work you need enough time that the driver processes the situation and decides the horn will communicate something AND enough time for the pedestrian or whatever to process that and react to it. Generally it's a lot easier just to press the brake, and more importantly be travelling at a speed and in a manner where the brake is sufficient.Structurally, we'd be much better off reducing conflicts between the different tiers of users. I.e. properly segregated infrastructure for each class of vehicle.

eigenspace: A horn or bell is mostly for telling other people "hey I'm here, stay out of my way and dont suddenly cross into my path"My opinion as a cyclist is that I should basically only be using my bell on pedestrians when the pedestrians are wandering onto the bike lane. If im cycling through a shared space, I find it extremely rude to ring the bell, because it feels like I'm telling people to get out of my way, but they have just as much right to a shared path as I do. Some cyclists ring their bells because they're worried a pedestrian might suddenly turn into their path, but I think if one is concerned about that, it's a sign youre cycling too fast, and should just slow down.With cars, I will sometimes proactively ring my bell at them if I think they're not sufficiently aware enough of me though.

ndsipa_pomu: > With cars, I will sometimes proactively ring my bell at them if I think they're not sufficiently aware enough of me though.There's only a few types of car that will be "aware" of cyclists and I don't think ringing a bell will help their algorithms. Getting the attention of a driver, meanwhile, is difficult with a bell as often they'll be in a semi-soundproof cage with loud music on. (Also deaf drivers are a thing).

jeroenhd: I find the "Heard five seconds earlier, the difference between a serious collision and stepping aside" take hilarious. As if there is no other way to prevent a collision in five seconds other than the pedestrian getting out of the way.As much as I get the urge to plow through pedestrians on bike paths (and stay proudly in the way of bikes on pedestrian paths), in real life, normal people don't do that kind of thing. Bikes have brakes for a reason.

lxgr: This is amazing. Would be great if emergency vehicle sirens could also adopt these findings. I feel like they're beyond painfully loud these days.

ndsipa_pomu: I concur. Even the best bell in the world may be utterly useless if the pedestrian happens to be deaf. Also, bicycle bells tend to polarise pedestrians - some people think that bells are rude and insisting that peds get out of the way and other people think it's dangerous and rude to not use a bell every time you overtake.My solution is to still have a tiny bell on my road bike, but instead of using it, call out something like "can I get past, please?" or if an immediate response is required (e.g. ped blindly stepping into the road ahead of me) then yelling "Oi!" can really surprise them and make them notice you. I'm also a fan of using "Beep, beep" if a ped is on cycle infrastructure (active travel infrastructure is probably a better term) and I want to pretend that I'm an impatient driver.I think the human voice is far superior to a bell as you can tailor the message for the situation and you don't have to move a hand away from the brakes to do so. (Using your voice is also a very good idea when approaching a horse and rider - horses know about humans and don't get freaked out if you call ahead "Morning!" or something cheery and appropriate).

Tade0: Regular alarm sounds already do that, because above 1kHz or so it's the cushioning in the device that does the majority of the cancelling. There's a dip in effectiveness before that because to cancel noise effectively it's best to have a latency lower than a quarter of the wave's period.Also ANC works best on wide-spectrum sounds, so any kind of siren or the cries of a child will go through, as the spectrum is a series of narrow peaks.

soco: 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.

madsohm: This bell would be illegal in Denmark, where our laws clearly state that you are only allowed one signal giving device and that any signal giving devices attached to vehicles (including bikes) can only produce one constant sound.How this would be enforced is a different topic.

Phemist: > In my (Dutch) city, there is this infuriating piece of road where the bicycle path suddenly gets routed onto the kerb, intentionally mixing bikes and pedestrians. I believe the theory is that bikes will go slower so pedestrians don't need to worry about crossing the road as much or something.That is an unfortunate, probably experimental?, traffic design choice...

Alifatisk: > Its a simple analog solution to a digital problemThat's such a beautiful statement

wizzwizz4: How do we enforce seatbelts? (1) Assume the public aren't stupid. (2) Assume the public aren't murderers. (3) Explain the risk-benefit analysis through informative videos like https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Julie_(1998_film).People can shout "domestic terror" all they like, but if it's not true, it's not true.

joe_mamba: > I'm just trying to offer the perspective from a situation where the root cause as I see it has been fixed (to a high degree).Your argument was not a solution. You just said, "NL fixd this, why haven't other countries?"Have you considered that other cities/countries can't just add infrastructure that hasn't been designed from the start to accommodate bikes the same way NL has without taking space away from pedestrians or cars?And that fixing it is not a switch you can just turn on on a whim, but requires decades of political and societal change plus capital before consensus is achieved? Democracies are complicated, even moreson in times like these.What do you do until then, when a bell is an instant improvement?You're commenting off the sidelines without realizing why most countries can't flip a switch and become NL overnight.>It would be a shame if these "cyclist-pedestrian ANC-wars" distract from the real issue, that cyclists are not, but should be, a fully emancipated participant in traffic and infrastructure should be designed with cars (to a degree), bicyclists AND pedestrians in mind.Yeah but what do you do if they are? There's no ANC wars here, Skoda just made a better bell. Are you also against the development of better bicycle helmets, because where you live you don't need them?

lxgr: Wearing a seatbelt cost next to nothing in inconvenience. Not being able to listen to music or have phone calls with noise cancellation while walking does not really compare.Of course this requires compensating for the loss in awareness through hearing by looking more diligently before crossing a bike lane, but unfortunately, some people never learn this, or only through a few close calls.

afandian: Cool idea. But bizarre that they worked with Deliveroo. Bike bells were designed for a time when cyclists travelled at speeds where you could safely get out of the way.Most "independent" cyclists do cycle safely.But delivery riders commonly use illegally modified e-bikes. Deliveroo has the GPS data. They must know.They could make huge improvements in safety by actively preventing the use of illegally modified e-bikes that travel too fast.

croemer: But if you go at 40km/h the time goes down to one or two seconds!

broken-kebab: You are answering different question. What you are saying is called awareness campaign or something. Enforcement of seatbelts is done by police with fines/tickets and is possible cause it's visible from outside.Other things like loudness levels inside cars cannot be monitored without going in full totalitarian mode.

lxgr: > Draw a line, say this is for bicycles, pedestrians and cars have no business here, and bikes have no business being on any other lane as long as these exist.This is the reality in many cities, if it weren't for the hopefully not surprising fact that people don't always obey traffic laws perfectly.

i_am_proteus: Bicycle bells are mostly for warning pedestrians when approaching from behind and passing on shared-use trails. I ride on shared infrastructure and cannot afford to build new infrastructure when my town will not. Not warning a pedestrian when approaching from behind introduces the possibility of collision if the pedestrian makes a sudden change in his walking course. I typically use this etiquette:Passing a single pedestrian or runner on a quiet day: no bell, coasting for a short bit with a loud free hub (the rotating ratchet element on the rear wheel) alerts the pedestrian to my presence.Passing a runner: normal ring from a distance so they have knowledge that the bicycle is passingPassing a cyclist: one loud ring from a distancePassing a pedestrian walking a dog: two loud rings, one far, one close, so that the pedestrian is aware of the approaching bicycle and he can prevent his dog from running at me/colliding. Many dogs do seem to enjoy a bicycle chase.Antisocial pedestrians (i.e., walking side-by-side such as to be blocking the path in both directions, preventing the bicyclist from passing): several loud rings of the bell until the antisocial activity has abated. Announcements in my local tongue (not English) that they impede the flow of traffic.

lxgr: On my bike commute route, I'd lose my voice before the first meeting of the day if I had to use only my voice.

shermozle: A car company wanting to divert attention away from the carnage cars cause. Seems a bit suspicious no?

watwut: The problem is the cyclist trying to overtake pedestrian on sidewalk faster. The cyclist paying for it is correct person paying for it.I say it as cyclist. Pedestrians have right to be absent minded in parks and on public sidewalks.

ndsipa_pomu: Unfortunately, the UK seems almost incapable of building usable cycle infrastructure (possibly excepting London). Your idea is just a recipe for magic protective paint and even more abuse of cyclists who don't want to be forced to use ridiculously badly designed infrastructure. e.g. Here in Bristol, we have an infamous shared cycle/pedestrian pavement along Coronation Rd that has a few trees completely blocking the cycle side which just means conflict between pedestrians and cyclists who have to fight over the scraps left over from motorists taking most of the space (https://www.google.com/maps/@51.4462522,-2.6064792,3a,75y,80...).

walletdrainer: > If im cycling through a shared space, I find it extremely rude to ring the bell, because it feels like I'm telling people to get out of my way, but they have just as much right to a shared path as I do.It’s certainly rude to ring the bell in a aggressive manner, but many bells are capable of producing much softer, more polite sounds.

lxgr: > Do horns and bells really prevent accidents?They absolutely do, for indirect reasons:> Generally it's a lot easier just to press the brakeMaybe easier, but it hardly seems fair, nor realistic.With a bit of experience, you can tell when pedestrians are likely to stumble onto the bike lane without looking. Then you have two choices: Significantly reduce your speed, or ring your bell first and only reduce speed if they still haven't noticed the oncoming bike.If you only reduce speed, you'll be traveling at a very low average speed, and time is money (especially for bike delivery workers, but I also hate having to sharply decelerate for people glued to their screen or otherwise completely unaware of their surroundings even if I'm not in a rush), so you can take a guess as to whether "just reducing your speed" is practicable.

0x3f: > If you only reduce speed, you'll be traveling at a very low average speed, and time is moneyWell this is a bit of an appeal to consequences. I would say (a) this is a very good reason to build dedicated infra, and (b) if something ever does happen, a court is really not going to take this line of reasoning very well, so be careful with it... even if in practice it's how you consider it.

lxgr: These things take both time and massive political will.As somebody living in a city that's quite bike friendly, all things concerned, but still not close to Dutch or Danish levels of biking safety, I'll take any "technical solutions that try to solve social/political problems" I can get to make my commute safer.Also, anything that makes biking feel safer will make more people try commuting by bike, which in turn increases the political will to change traffic laws and space use. Nothing exists in a vacuum.

croemer: Fun fact: Škoda means "pity" or "damage" in Czech, can also be used as "what a shame".Happened to be the company founder's surname.

lxgr: If you know of a simple technical solution to transform the entire world into the Netherlands, I'm all ears!

Phemist: https://translate.kagi.com/nl.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geschiedeni...This could serve as the blueprint I guess, skip to the part about the 70s and 80s protests. Collective and popular protests helped by an oil crisis, recognizing vested interests in other modes of transportation (cars) that might want to work against your efforts.

lxgr: > Collective and popular protests helped by an oil crisisSounds neither simple nor technical.

Phemist: Nope, but now the worldwide geopolitical situation is such that it might at least be feasible?

lxgr: I'm completely in favor of building dedicated infrastructure, but I can't do that by myself. (Also, how do you prevent pedestrians from crossing said dedicated infrastructure without looking? Should it be fenced off? But I agree that there are better and worse implementations of dedicated bike lanes.)What would you suggest cyclists do until that happens? Never go faster than walking speed? Then I can leave my bike at home. Cycle on the road, where cars can hit me, instead of the dedicated bike lane, use of which is often mandatory?> a court is really not going to take this line of reasoning very wellA court will rule in favor of the pedestrian stepping onto a bike lane without looking getting hit by a bike that's too close to do anything?

0x3f: > What would you suggest cyclists do until that happens? Never go faster than walking speed? Then I can leave my bike at home. Cycle on the road, where cars can hit me, instead of the dedicated bike lane, use of which is often mandatory?I don't know where you live but it's quite unusual here to be cycling through areas that have a lot of pedestrians. If the bike lane is a dedicated one, pedestrians are very rarely in it. But yes if all else fails, the road is preferable to the pavement if you're unwilling to cycle slowly enough.> how do you prevent pedestrians from crossing said dedicated infrastructure without looking?That's a UX problem. You can also ask how to prevent cars driving on the cycle lane. Which we do in a multitude of ways. You just need to physically communicate segregation and danger.> A court will rule in favor of the pedestrian stepping onto a bike lane without looking getting hit by a bike that's too close to do anything?Here, absolutely, if they consider the cyclist is going too fast for the conditions. There's a concept of a hierarchy whereby the more vulnerable class is almost assumed not to be at fault. Same for a car hitting a cyclist, or a motorbike, even.

impish9208: Ha, I had the same idea before I realized it’ll just be used for ads. It would be cool for pilots’ announcements on a flight, or approaching stations on the train etc. But CVS will use it to tell you to download their app and enroll in ExtraCare Rewards. Or “Did you know you may be due for more than fourteen vaccines all at no cost to you?”

dzhiurgis: 750 Hz. Baby crying sound is around 300-400 Hz and let me tell you my airpods pro definitely let me hear the baby cry. I think Apple built that as an obvious safety feature.Interestingly, all the shrillness noises (chalkboard, balloon or polystyrene screech) are in similar frequency too.

lxgr: Yes, but again, what's your problem with additionally taking steps to make things safer? Unless you somehow see technologies such as this distracting from creating a safer environment. But this was developed by Skoda, so I doubt that if they hadn't done this, they would have lobbied for more bike lanes instead.

patates: Sorry I didn't write "don't have trees in the middle of the cycling lanes", I should have been more clear.Also "don't let the restaurants cover the pavement with tables" follows the same logic.Perhaps, planners should travel the route three times for every permitted mode of transportation, including walking, biking, and driving.

Markoff: this was not really an issue before food delivery apps came into fashionbtw. kids up until certain age can pretty much in all countries ride bike legally on sidewalk, are there any countries where 8yo can't ride bike on sidewalk?

noio: I wonder if you are German?Spending some time in Germany from Holland I notice there is a significant difference in cycling etiquette :)Especially regarding “passing a cyclist” which also touches on the essential difficulty with having only one “ring” sound.Always when Germans pass me on the bike and they ring I get slightly annoyed because I interpret it as a “get out of the way” ring, and I feel like there is enough space. But perhaps it’s just the cautious “don’t do anything unexpected” ring.A Dutch person would rarely ring at another cyclist in the former way. But they also might be less safety focused while cycling (see also: helmet usage). Or we have safer infrastructure already.On a road bike, however, I too ring at pedestrians “preemptively”. For sure GPs remark of “if you need to ring you’re going too fast” applies here but that’s the essence of road cycling.Ironically I’m also annoyed when road cyclists ring at me for the same reason.Just shows the case for having 2 clearly different types of rings.(Also for cars to have a “thank you” horn, haha)

wizzwizz4: "Next to nothing in inconvenience" is the perception now. It certainly wasn't the perception when seatbelts were introduced. The ability to listen to personal music while walking is less than 50 years old: before that, you had the radio or nothing. Even that would not be an intolerable inconvenience for most. But I was more thinking:> People should not hear loud music when driving - max is normal speaking voice level.which feels like a more than acceptable constraint to me.

lxgr: > People should not hear loud music when driving - max is normal speaking voice level.Oh, completely agreed on that one. In a car, you are also by far better protected than any cyclists you might encounter, so you shouldn't make it harder to hear their signaling. (I still wouldn't rely on any car having heard my bell if I don't get any other confirmation that the driver has noticed me, e.g. sufficiently slowing down as they are approaching the intersection where I have right of way.)But GGP also said> People should not wear headphones (noise-cancelling or not) when going through traffic as pedestrians. Take them off when crossing!and that's what I think goes too far. Why should I remove my headphones if I look both ways before crossing a bike lane or road?The ideal rule would of course be that only those pedestrians remove their headphones that are otherwise inattentive... Although I have my doubts that they'd remember.

Phemist: I dont have issues with taking additional steps to make things safer, I have an issue with this solution serving as a vehicle for the marketing of the inevitability of the problem (of cyclists and pedestrians sharing space) by a car manufacturer obviously interested in this problem continuing to exist.

i_am_proteus: Living now in Germany :)I ring a very nice bell and can "mute" the bell (touching it with my hand to stop the ring just after thumbing the striker), so when ringing for information rather than hazard, it's a short quick ring, rather than a long loud ring.Signs here alert cyclists to warn when passing, so certainly this etiquette is considered normal, but also I imagine it is not universal to all regions.