From Alice Thompson in todays Torygrief - seems to hit the nail on the
head.
...d
Put a brake on the bells
The last time that Tony Blair got on his bike was at the EU summit in Amsterdam in 1997, Gordon Brown's eyesight prevents him swinging his leg over the crossbar and John Prescott has always hated bicycles since he failed to receive one after he didn't pass his 11-plus.
This may go some way to explaining the Government's bizarre decision to force cyclists to buy a bell for their bikes and go round saying "Parp, parp" like Noddy or risk a £2,500 fine.
Cyclists know that bells will not promote road safety. Most car drivers, radios on full-blast, won't hear them; bus drivers are cocooned from all noise; and pedestrians will be infuriated at having to leap out of the way of arrogant Lycra-lads. The best way to avoid a crash is to keep both hands on the brakes - which is impossible if you are also attempting to ring your bell.
The best way to avoid a crash is to keep both hands on the brakes - which is impossible if you are also attempting to ring your bell.
Nah, Thumb operates the bell.
Of course, the only point of having a bell is to move errant pedestrians off the cycle path and back onto the pavement.
Drivers are unlikely to hear a bell. Simply having a bell on a bike doesn't mean it will actually get used either. Whether one has a bell or not isn't going to make the slightest difference, since there's no way anyone could prove you had or hadn't rung it before say, hitting them....as you say, the background road noise in most cities would make it pretty impossible even for pedestrians to hear a bell or for it to be proved whether someone had or hadn't rung a bell, even if there were witnesses.
IMO car horns aren't particularly useful as warnings either - drivers rarely use their horn as a warning but more usually to either say hello to their mates, or as a sign of agression, so I can't understand why it's been assumed that a bicycle bell would be any more useful. I agree that braking (whilst shouting 'Aaargh!' or similar warning) as a pedestrian suicidally leaps out in front of me still seems the most useful and effective response in avoiding a collision!
Paul Weaver wrote: IMO car horns aren't particularly useful as warnings either - drivers rarely use their horn as a warning but more usually to either say hello to their mates, or as a sign of agression, so I can't understand why it's been assumed that a bicycle bell would be any more useful. I agree that braking (whilst shouting 'Aaargh!' or similar warning) as a pedestrian suicidally leaps out in front of me still seems the most useful and effective response in avoiding a collision!
Perhaps screaming "Banzaiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii" and waving an axe around might be even more effective.
Monty Python were ahead of their time. John Cleese's Ministry of Funny Walks was inspired. How stupid but typically British you almost believed it was real. It would appear now that we have a Ministry of Absolutely Stupid Ideas. £2,500 fine for no bell on a bicycle. How much was that motorist fined that was involved in that carnage in North Wales?
Monty Python were ahead of their time. John Cleese's Ministry of Funny Walks was inspired. How stupid but typically British you almost believed it was real. It would appear now that we have a Ministry of Absolutely Stupid Ideas. £2,500 fine for no bell on a bicycle.
I'm getting tired of reading this £2,500 figure quoted all of the time. That's the maximum possible fine for repeat offenders. You'd have to be pretty thick (or bloody minded) to get caught enough times to be fined that much (if it did become law).
It's like saying that getting caught speeding will cost you a £10,000 fine, 5 years in prison and permanent disqualification from driving.
I don't object to the size of the standard fine, the maximum level of fines or any other punishment for not having a bell on a bicycle.
I object to the basic idea that bells on bicycles should be made mandatory by law.
Relax people, no-one is going to make this nonsense law. At most it may appear to be 'workable' to ensure all new bikes are provided with a bell, similar to reflectors. Even if it was mandetory, how on earth would this be policed and enforced when we already have some resasonably sensible laws that are not - I see quite a few unlit cyclists about despite the law on lighting and I am fairly sure there are a certain number of uninsured and/or untaxed drivers around too....
Relax people, no-one is going to make this nonsense law. At most it may appear to be 'workable' to ensure all new bikes are provided with a bell, similar to reflectors.
They already are, I think.
Quoted message said:
Even if it was mandetory, how on earth would this be policed and enforced when we already have some resasonably sensible laws that are not - I see quite a few unlit cyclists about despite the law on lighting and I am fairly sure there are a certain number of uninsured and/or untaxed drivers around too....
It would be used to determine degree of blame, as when you get hit by a car but it must have been partly your fault because you weren't wearing a he**et.
It would be used to determine degree of blame, as when you get hit by a car but it must have been partly your fault because you weren't wearing a he**et.
Spot on.
If it does become law, how long before an enterprising insurance company claim for a reduction in the level of compensation to be paid to an injured cyclist becuse their bike was not fitted with a bell, irrespective of the fact that in most collisions with vehicles, a bell would be about as much use as a chocolate teapot. :-(
It would be used to determine degree of blame, as when you get hit by a car but it must have been partly your fault because you weren't wearing a he**et.
Spot on.
If it does become law, how long before an enterprising insurance company claim for a reduction in the level of compensation to be paid to an injured cyclist becuse their bike was not fitted with a bell, irrespective of the fact that in most collisions with vehicles, a bell would be about as much use as a chocolate teapot. :-(
Hadn't thought of that, mostly 'cos it just seems too ridiculous....
On 13 Sep 2006 04:37:52 -0700, "Alex" <[email hidden]> wrote:
>I don't object to the size of the standard fine, the maximum level of >fines or any other punishment for not having a bell on a bicycle. > >I object to the basic idea that bells on bicycles should be made >mandatory by law. > Nothing inconsistent in those two statements...
Nothing at all, no. Do learn to comprehend and /reason/.
Are you suggesting that the punishment not objected to by "Alex" should be one not resultant from a mandatory bell law?
<sigh> he objects to the principle, not to the detail. As he said.
What /do/ they teach them in their schools these days?
Upon the miasma of midnight, a darkling spirit identified as Blonde <[email hidden]> gently breathed:
Quoted message said:
Relax people, no-one is going to make this nonsense law. At most it may appear to be 'workable' to ensure all new bikes are provided with a bell, similar to reflectors. Even if it was mandetory, how on earth would this be policed and enforced when we already have some resasonably sensible laws that are not - I see quite a few unlit cyclists about despite the law on lighting and I am fairly sure there are a certain number of uninsured and/or untaxed drivers around too....
Many of whom are yacking constantly on their mobiles.
Perhaps the powers that be should resource the policing of the laws we already have before introducing any new ones?
"Simon Brooke" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:[email hidden]...
Quoted message said:
in message <[email hidden]>,
(') said:
Simon Brooke said:
in message <[email hidden]>, [email hidden] ([email hidden]'😉 wrote:
> On 13 Sep 2006 04:37:52 -0700, "Alex" <[email hidden]> wrote: > >>I don't object to the size of the standard fine, the maximum level of >>fines or any other punishment for not having a bell on a bicycle. >> >>I object to the basic idea that bells on bicycles should be made >>mandatory by law. >> > Nothing inconsistent in those two statements...
Nothing at all, no. Do learn to comprehend and /reason/.
Are you suggesting that the punishment not objected to by "Alex" should be one not resultant from a mandatory bell law?
<sigh> he objects to the principle, not to the detail. As he said.
What /do/ they teach them in their schools these days?
Let me rephrase what was written into a phrase that says what I think was intended. -
"It is not the size of the standard fine, the maximum fine nor any other other punishment for not having a bell on a bicycle that I object to. What I do object to is the very idea that bells on bicycles should be made mandatory."
What they teach in schools seems to exclude the simple art of making sense.
-- Dave Lloyd So open minded, my brains dribbled out.
"Simon Brooke" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:[email hidden]...
Quoted message said:
in message <[email hidden]>,
(') said:
On Wed, 13 Sep 2006 15:25:10 +0100, Simon Brooke <[email hidden]> wrote:
>in message <[email hidden]>, >[email hidden] ([email hidden]'😉 wrote: > >> On 13 Sep 2006 04:37:52 -0700, "Alex" <[email hidden]> wrote: >> >>>I don't object to the size of the standard fine, the maximum level of >>>fines or any other punishment for not having a bell on a bicycle. >>> >>>I object to the basic idea that bells on bicycles should be made >>>mandatory by law. >>> >> Nothing inconsistent in those two statements... > >Nothing at all, no. Do learn to comprehend and /reason/.
Are you suggesting that the punishment not objected to by "Alex" should be one not resultant from a mandatory bell law?
<sigh> he objects to the principle, not to the detail. As he said.
What /do/ they teach them in their schools these days?
Let me rephrase what was written into a phrase that says what I think was intended. -
"It is not the size of the standard fine, the maximum fine nor any other other punishment for not having a bell on a bicycle that I object to. What I do object to is the very idea that bells on bicycles should be made mandatory."
What they teach in schools seems to exclude the simple art of making sense.
Indeed. A basic effort not to make statements that are inconsistent with each other would have sufficed.
I own a "China bell" - a massive, intimidating piece of equipment that spins around and rings continuously if you press it every second or so. I was always under the impression the thing was illegal in this country. Does this legislation mean I am allowed to use it now? I sure makes pedestrians jump out of the way!
<[email hidden]> wrote in message news:[email hidden]...
Quoted message said:
I own a "China bell" - a massive, intimidating piece of equipment
that
Quoted message said:
spins around and rings continuously if you press it every second or
so.
Quoted message said:
I was always under the impression the thing was illegal in this country. Does this legislation mean I am allowed to use it now? I
sure
Quoted message said:
makes pedestrians jump out of the way!
Poor Ding-dong Ladyman. He's never going to be able to give a public speech again. I imagine terrorist hecklers will be letting off things like the China bell whenever he tries to open his mouth.
The question isn't whether such bells are legal on the street, it's whether they are legal during Question Time in the House of Commons.
I own a "China bell" - a massive, intimidating piece of equipment that spins around and rings continuously if you press it every second or so. I was always under the impression the thing was illegal in this country.
