Cyclists - your experiences on the road

[matt_world2004]

There's probably some strange piece of forum etiquette I'm breaking by replying to my own post!

Section 4(3) of the Pedal Bicycles (Safety) regulation 2010 requires



So please... explain how the apparently serious suggestion that it is a legal requirement for a bicycle to be sold with something it is apparently illegal to use?

I didnt say it was illegal to use, I said it was illegal to use it to indicate anything other than your presence.

Shared paths are usually 2m wide anyway. That's why you ring when you're still far away. What's not good is passing without sounding a bell/horn when approaching (which is commonplace).

Respectful riding involves overtaking at reduced speed (as when passing horses), but shared paths are really for slower riders. Slowing to approach gives those on foot time to move to one side to let you pass. It also makes it easy to stop if they're ignoring your presence.

Ringing far away yeah thats fine, because that lets people know you are there. but ringing right behind someone or when they are already aware of your presence is what is intimidating.

 

[Bletchleyite]

So if you were cycling and a car user repeatedly tooted their horn to get you to slow down or stop so they could pass you would that be intimidating or threatening.

See my comment about car horns above. What I would say is that if I was cycling along a road that wasn't wide enough to overtake and a car was behind me, and I could see that there wouldn't soon be an option to overtake, I'd absolutely let them past. So that situation wouldn't arise, because I am a considerate road user rather than one who just shouts about my rights.

Cyclists for their own safety generally want to keep to the middle of a road lane , to discourage close passes and cycling to the extreme left of a road near the gutter can be dangerous.

Have you ever ridden a bicycle? There are reasons to use the primary and secondary positions depending on the situation (the secondary position is not riding in the gutter but rather about 1m out), but it should not be used simply to deter a car from passing when it would be safe for them to pass.

Ringing far away yeah thats fine, because that lets people know you are there. but ringing right behind someone or when they are already aware of your presence is what is intimidating.

I'd agree, but because you are a considerate pedestrian who let them past once aware of their presence that situation wouldn't actually arise, would it?

 

[py_megapixel]

Have you ever ridden a bicycle? There are reasons to use the primary and secondary positions depending on the situation (the secondary position is not riding in the gutter but rather about 1m out), but it should not be used simply to deter a car from passing when it would be safe for them to pass.

Incidentally, there are also reasons to go into the oncoming lane, even if to a vehicle driver it doesn't appear necessary. Most notably, I've always been taught that one should pass parked vehicles leaving enough width that if the door was fully open it couldn't hit you; on narrow roads this sometimes isn't possible while staying in the lane.

Most infuriating is when I need to pass a parked vehicle in such a manner, but somebody from behind, without realising this, starts to overtake on the right, leaving no space to pull out and making me stop behind the parked vehicle.

 

[Non Multi]

As a pedestrian it's advised to walk facing the direction of road traffic, and in my opinion helpful to walk to one side of a shared path, not only to allow bikes through, but also joggers and runners.

 

[duncombec]

I didnt say it was illegal to use, I said it was illegal to use it to indicate anything other than your presence.

What other reason would the vast majority of cyclists (other than the lycra lunatics who think most other cyclists are going too slowly for them) haveto use other than to indicate presence? Section 66 of the highway code actually requires (in as much as the Highway Code requires anything that doesn't have a statutory reference) you to use your bell to signal you are nearby.

To take your argument to it's logical conclusion, what you are saying is that if another pedestrian comes up to you and says "excuse me", they are a) liberty to ignore you, because they don't "have" to let you past and b) if they don't do so with enough time for you to react, or say it too close to you, that they are being intimidating? I'm sorry, but you seem to be fundamentally misunderstanding that the bell is the bicycle equivalent of "excuse me", adjusted for the normal speed of use.

the secondary position is not riding in the gutter but rather about 1m out

I was advised in my cycling proficiency training (granted a couple of decades ago) that the 'correct' position is one where you can safely avoid drain covers, road markings (due to likely slipperiness) and other roadside detritus without having to make unexpected swerves. Essentially, if you have to swerve into the main part of the road for anything other than something unusually oversized, you are too close to the kerb. In reality, this is about 3 feet, or 1m, as you rightly say (and we don't agree on much!)

 

[matt_world2004]

Have you ever ridden a bicycle? There are reasons to use the primary and secondary positions depending on the situation (the secondary position is not riding in the gutter but rather about 1m out), but it should not be used simply to deter a car from passing when it would be safe for them to pass.

Ok take this situation .I who can see properly do not mind on canal towpaths letting cyclists pass. I will walk to the edge of the pavement and let them pass slowly .

However I have a friend who is partially sighted. She cannot move to the edge of footpaths because she cannot clearly see the boundary between edge of footpaths /grass /canal or see when grass verges are actually swamps. So she will not move to the side.

She doesn't use a cane or anything to indicate she is partially sighted she doesn't need to.

I've ridden a bike, along busy roads in London. I'm not s confident cyclist but I would never dare intimidate pedestrians or other road users into moving out of the way on my behalf.

I had driving lessons before the pandemic. Where when passing cyclists I would give them a cars width so the pass would not be intimidating and would slow down and stay well back if I didn't think it was safe to pass them .

I believe philosophically and legally road traffic laws should protect the most vulnerable as a priority and that is different depending on the situation.

A shared use path the pedestrian is the most vulnerable user. On a road where there are no pedestrians a cyclist is the most vulnerable user.

There is also a hierarchy of ability with pedestrians being someone of any ability or sensory awareness. Rising to motor vehicles which require a qualification. The law should protect those who have the lowest ability to navigate their environment legally and that is pedestrians first and foremost followed by cyclists and then motor vehicles.

What other reason would the vast majority of cyclists (other than the lycra lunatics who think most other cyclists are going too slowly for them) haveto use other than to indicate presence? Section 66 of the highway code actually requires (in as much as the Highway Code requires anything that doesn't have a statutory reference) you to use your bell to signal you are nearby.

To tell someone to move out of the way. If you have already rang the bell once and a pedestrian hasn't moved out of your way by the time you approach you can either assume

1.) They didn't hear the bell and are thus not aware of your presence. Which may indicate a sensory or other disability
2.) Or they are not going to move out of your way for whatever reason

In this situation the most vulnerable road user is the pedestrian and you need to hang back, decide if it is safe to pass or get off a bike and walk past them

 

[Bletchleyite]

However I have a friend who is partially sighted. She cannot move to the edge of footpaths because she cannot clearly see the boundary between edge of footpaths /grass /canal or see when grass verges are actually swamps. So she will not move to the side.

There is always, always a niche, and this Forum loves to find them - you get it in almost every thread where there is discussion about a new policy which will be great for 99.9% of rail users but will disadvantage someone's old Aunt Fanny when she goes to Scarborough for fish and chips on the third Tuesday of June every year. A favourite is when we get onto what percentage of car owners do not have a debit card, for example (clue: it's going to be somewhere around 0).

That a cyclist would need to make a human judgement about how to handle that situation[1] does not change the general situation, which is that the pedestrian is fully aware that a cyclist is behind and wishes to pass, and so should step aside for a second.

[1] Ring bell from a distance, no action. Ring bell once a bit closer, no action. When quite close, say "Is there any chance I could pass, please?", to which the reasonable other person replies "I'm afraid I'm partially sighted so have to stay in the middle of the path as I can't see the edges safely[2]". Depending on the situation they continue their polite, reasonable human conversation to find the best resolution to the problem, which might for instance involve the cyclist dismounting to pass by walking in the road or similar.

[2] There's a thing on here about "why should I declare my disability", but sometimes it's actually helpful. No need for gross detail of course, but human understanding works better when people know the practical implications of other peoples' situations.

1.) They didn't hear the bell and are thus not aware of your presence. Which may indicate a sensory or other disability
2.) Or they are not going to move out of your way for whatever reason

(1) is often because wind carries sound and bicycle bells are quiet, or because they are obviously wearing headphones. I will tend to do a second ring a little closer for that reason. It might indicate a disability but mostly it does not.

You can tend to identify (2) because they will turn round and make an aggressive or rude comment in response to the second ring, at which point all bets are off.

 

[matt_world2004]

There is always, always a niche, and this Forum loves to find them - you get it in almost every thread where there is discussion about a new policy which will be great for 99.9% of rail users but will disadvantage someone's old Aunt Fanny when she goes to Scarborough for fish and chips on the third Tuesday of June every year.

That a cyclist would need to make a human judgement about how to handle that situation[1] does not change the general situation, which is that the pedestrian is fully aware that a cyclist is behind and wishes to pass, and so should step aside for a second.

[1] Ring bell from a distance, no action. Ring bell once a bit closer, no action. When quite close, say "Is there any chance I could pass, please?", to which the reasonable other person replies "I'm afraid I'm partially sighted so have to stay in the middle of the path as I can't see the edges safely[2]". Depending on the situation they continue their polite, reasonable human conversation to find the best resolution to the problem, which might for instance involve the cyclist dismounting to pass by walking in the road or similar.

[2] There's a thing on here about "why should I declare my disability", but sometimes it's actually helpful. No need for gross detail of course, but human understanding works better when people know the practical implications of other peoples' situations.

The thing is when there is a niche and you are cycling you have to make the assumption that they are part of that niche because you dont know who they are. Again disclosing a disability may be embarassing or may put the person on the spot.

(1) is often because wind carries sound and bicycle bells are quiet, or because they are obviously wearing headphones. I will tend to do a second ring a little closer for that reason. It might indicate a disability but mostly it does not.

You can tend to identify (2) because they will turn round and make an aggressive or rude comment in response to the second ring, at which point all bets are off.

Why would someone make a rude or aggressive comment if they didnt feel that your actions were an attempt to intimidate.

 

[Bletchleyite]

The thing is when there is a niche and you are cycling you have to make the assumption that they are part of that niche because you dont know who they are.

No, you don't. No road use at all is based on that presumption, as if it was we would need to have cars moving at 5mph with red flags in front.

You simply need to accommodate the niches when it becomes apparent that they exist.

Again disclosing a disability may be embarassing or may put the person on the spot.

There's nothing embarrassing about being partially sighted. It's not a Pythonesque medical condition, it's a simple fact which is relevant to the situation.

 

[matt_world2004]

No, you don't. No road use at all is based on that presumption, as if it was we would need to have cars moving at 5mph with red flags in front.



There's nothing embarrassing about being partially sighted. It's not a Pythonesque medical condition, it's a simple fact which is relevant to the situation.

They might be embarassed about it or they might not be able to immediately articulate why they cannot move out of the way if put on the spot.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Why would someone make a rude or aggressive comment if they didnt feel that your actions were an attempt to intimidate.

Because some people are inconsiderate and don't think of others, and so interpret anything as aggression or a slight.

 

[ashkeba]

Shared use paths are a terrible idea in my opinion except where traffic of one mode or the other is very low - how much extra does it really cost to paint a dividing line down the middle and have pedestrians on the left, bikes on the right or vice-versa?

They travel at very different speeds and therefore, in my opinion, don't mix.

I understand this painted line is now UK policy but I think it will not work unless government and developers are going to either build paths wide enough (unlike most now) or make it illegal for walkers to walk along the cycling side unnecessarily which I understand it is not currently.

Or maybe I am wrong and now more people cycled during covid, there will be less militant ramblers trying to kill cyclists with their dog leafs and insisting cyclists should dismount and push their bikes past every dog.

 

[matt_world2004]

No, you don't. No road use at all is based on that presumption, as if it was we would need to have cars moving at 5mph with red flags in front.

You simply need to accommodate the niches when it becomes apparent that they exist.

An assumption can be made that when someone is cycling or driving on the road , that they are qualified to drive or have the ability to cycle. that assumption doesnt apply to pedestrians.

Because some people are inconsiderate and don't think of others, and so interpret anything as aggression or a slight.

No they make a rude comment because they think you are trying to force them out of the way. Otherwise they would have stopped when you rang the bell first time. and made the rude comment.

 

[Bletchleyite]

They might be embarassed about it or they might not be able to immediately articulate why they cannot move out of the way if put on the spot.

They might. But I'm hardly suggesting the cyclist should go up 2" behind them waving their fist, shouting abuse etc, am I?

All I'm suggesting is that if one becomes aware of a cyclist behind you when walking on a shared use path, and one can step aside briefly to let them past, one should do. You're coming up with all sorts of niche arguments that are irrelevant to that basic premise. The cyclist of course must be ready to stop if the pedestrian doesn't, but if the pedestrian is in a position to let them past that's the action of a nice person. And that's where this should end, because basic human consideration for other humans comes above shouting about one's rights in near enough every single situation imaginable in life, because that's what nice people do.

(Edited to be more generic, I'm speaking generally, not casting personal aspersions)

An assumption can be made that when someone is cycling or driving on the road , that they are qualified to drive or have the ability to cycle. that assumption doesnt apply to pedestrians.

I was actually thinking of pedestrians on the pavement as road users. If you had to assume everyone was deafblind, which is basically what you're suggesting, then you could never drive past a pedestrian on a pavement at more than walking pace as they may walk out at any moment.

 

[duncombec]

However I have a friend who is partially sighted. She cannot move to the edge of footpaths because she cannot clearly see the boundary between edge of footpaths /grass /canal or see when grass verges are actually swamps. So she will not move to the side.

Which is quite acceptable. But in the same way it would b wrong for the cyclist to belligerently assume he or she had an entitlement to get past, it is equally belligerent for your friend not to say "sorry, I can't see very well", "just a minute", or even "could you tell me if the grass verge is firm so that I can move out of your way."

To tell someone to move out of the way. If you have already rang the bell once and a pedestrian hasn't moved out of your way by the time you approach you can either assume

1.) They didn't hear the bell and are thus not aware of your presence. Which may indicate a sensory or other disability
2.) Or they are not going to move out of your way for whatever reason

In this situation the most vulnerable road user is the pedestrian and you need to hang back, decide if it is safe to pass or get off a bike and walk past them

The bell is there to ask someone to move out of the way, in the same was as a pedestrian says "excuse me". How are you still not understanding this?

A sensory disability is very rare*. In the modern day, it is more likely they have headphones or earphones in, or are too busy talking.

*I found a Finnish study that suggested ca. 8% of a sample of 8 year olds had some sort of sensory issue, but that included everything, including dyspraxia, itchy clothes, etc. Those who have an aural sensory issue is likely to be much, much lower.

 

[matt_world2004]

I was actually thinking of pedestrians on the pavement as road users. If you had to assume everyone was deafblind, which is basically what you're suggesting, then you could never drive past a pedestrian on a pavement at more than walking pace as they may walk out at any moment.

During driving lessons , I was taught that if you saw someone standing at the edge of the kerb that you become prepared to stop, until you get an assessment of the situation, precisely because they might be vulnerable

 

[Bletchleyite]

During driving lessons , I was taught that if you saw someone standing at the edge of the kerb that you become prepared to stop, until you get an assessment of the situation, precisely because they might be vulnerable

Yes, but that's a pedestrian who has already signalled that they might pose a threat by doing that, because standing at the edge of the kerb is signalling that you might cross, and the pedestrian might make an error of judgement in doing so. If everyone was deafblind, you couldn't assume they wouldn't just randomly walk out because they couldn't see where the kerb was nor hear the traffic in the first place.

Can you now see just how silly these niche arguments actually are?

 

[matt_world2004]

Which is quite acceptable. But in the same way it would b wrong for the cyclist to belligerently assume he or she had an entitlement to get past, it is equally belligerent for your friend not to say "sorry, I can't see very well", "just a minute", or even "could you tell me if the grass verge is firm so that I can move out of your way."



The bell is there to ask someone to move out of the way, in the same was as a pedestrian says "excuse me". How are you still not understanding this?

A sensory disability is very rare*. In the modern day, it is more likely they have headphones or earphones in, or are too busy talking.

*I found a Finnish study that suggested ca. 8% of a sample of 8 year olds had some sort of sensory issue, but that included everything, including dyspraxia, itchy clothes, etc. Those who have an aural sensory issue is likely to be much, much lower.

So why cant the cyclist say "excuse me" then instead of repeatedly ringing the bell.

 

[Bletchleyite]

So why cant the cyclist say "excuse me" then instead of repeatedly ringing the bell.

A bell actually sounds less aggressive than speaking loudly enough to be heard when a few metres back (as cycling within whispering distance of someone definitely is aggressive). That's precisely why they exist. A single "ping" of one of those cheap bells is definitely not aggressive, and a classic Dutch crown bell "rrinng-rrinng" just makes you think of sit-up-and-begs on a path through tulips with a windmill in view (well, maybe), it's again not aggressive.

With respect I'd say that if you find a bicycle bell aggressive, unless it's rung constantly in a way that is clearly intended to intimidate (which would be the equivalent of leaning on the horn in a car), you probably need to reconsider how you perceive it.

 

[matt_world2004]

A bell actually sounds less aggressive than speaking loudly enough to be heard when a few metres back (as cycling within whispering distance of someone definitely is aggressive). That's precisely why they exist. A single "ping" of one of those cheap bells is definitely not aggressive, and a classic Dutch crown bell "rrinng-rrinng" just makes you think of sit-up-and-begs on a path through tulips with a windmill in view (well, maybe), it's again not aggressive.

I can tell you havent been a pedestrian much, Ringing the bell more than once is definitely intimidating

Even this cyclist describes a cycle bell as having an undertone of reprimand when it is rang and she hates hearing them as a pedestrian.

One cyclist's bell has turned into hell on the towpath | Ben Thomas

Ben Thomas: I'd rather take my chances with buses and potholes than struggle with bell etiquette on a shared use path

www.theguardian.com

Personally, when I'm on foot, I don't like bells. I can never get past the undertone of reprimand. The Highway Code says car horns should only be used "to warn other road users of your presence"; and bells are to "let [road users] know you are there when necessary". Yeah yeah. The fact is that car horns don't say "Ahem...", they say "Oi, dickhead!", and for many pedestrians, bells do too.

 

[duncombec]

A bell actually sounds less aggressive than speaking loudly enough to be heard when a few metres back (as cycling within whispering distance of someone definitely is aggressive). That's precisely why they exist. A single "ping" of one of those cheap bells is definitely not aggressive, and a classic Dutch crown bell "rrinng-rrinng" just makes you think of sit-up-and-begs on a path through tulips with a windmill in view (well, maybe), it's again not aggressive.

With respect I'd say that if you find a bicycle bell aggressive, unless it's rung constantly in a way that is clearly intended to intimidate (which would be the equivalent of leaning on the horn in a car), you probably need to reconsider how you perceive it.

Indeed, and I think you and I have spent the last 45 minutes patiently explaining this. I'm not sure I have many more ways of making it simple.

I have a feeling Matt_World has only ever come across the Deliveroo-rider type cyclist, and not the common or garden average one that actually makes up the vast majority of cyclists in my fairly extensive experience.

I can tell you havent been a pedestrian much, Ringing the bell more than once is definitely intimidating

In your personal opinion, and maybe those of a few others around you. That isn't to say it isn't valid, but in no way can it be stated as fact that more than once = intimidating.

When next out walking, do a rough survey of how many people a) are wearing headphones/earphones or b) are in a group, but make no effort to move to the side to let you walk past and expect you to walk on the grass verge. I think you'll find it enlightening.

 

[Bletchleyite]

I can tell you havent been a pedestrian much

You'd be wrong. I walk and cycle extensively on our wonderful Redway system, something the whole country could do with, and something on which most users know the right way to behave, which is "with consideration of others".

Ringing the bell more than once is definitely intimidating

I'd say ring it twice. Once maybe 50 metres back, once about 5 metres back if the pedestrian hasn't done anything to indicate they've seen you (almost all will look behind, or move slightly, or something). More than that is probably aggressive, yes. But I'm not talking about more than that.

Even this cyclist describes a cycle bell as having an undertone of reprimand when it is rang and she hates hearing them as a pedestrian.

Clearly she has an error of perception too. Car horns clearly are as she described (hence my point above that cars could do with having two different horn sounds*) though.

* Metrolink trams have that friendly "toot" that means "Hello, I'm there, just so you were aware", and an almightily loud "scream" that means "you, get out of the way now, you're about to die if you don't". Cars could do with something similar; at present they only have the latter. The horn should actually be used more on things like blind corners, but people are loath to do so because it's so loud and aggressive.

 

[py_megapixel]

* Metrolink trams have that friendly "toot" that means "Hello, I'm there, just so you were aware", and an almightily loud "scream" that means "you, get out of the way now, you're about to die if you don't". Cars could do with something similar; at present they only have the latter. The horn should actually be used more on things like blind corners, but people are loath to do so because it's so loud and aggressive.

Are they not the same sound, just one is drawn out more?

 

[Bletchleyite]

Are they not the same sound, just one is drawn out more?

On the T68s they were I think the same air horn at different pressures (I wonder if you may not have heard the "scream", it's incredibly loud, not just a longer toot which they could do just by pressing the button for longer - in some ways a bit more like a steam locomotive whistle but not quite as "cute" as the Tube one, much more aggressive). On the new trams they are sound samples from a T68 played through a speaker (just as the "bells" on the new Croydon trams aren't a physical bell).

 

[peters]

Usually there is steady flow of oncoming traffic which requires me to stop before making the right turn so I signal a reasonable time before the turn and start to slow down and pull towards the centre of the road. The odd thing here is that, no matter how hard I try to communicate, drivers never seem to slow down behind me, which leads to them becoming annoyed when I have to stop and, in one case, almost causing a collision.

It sounds like you are doing the right thing, in that if what you are planning to do affects other road users then you give a clear signal informing the other road users and using a form of signal advised in the Highway Code. Unfortunately, a number of road users (both on bikes and in motor vehicles) don't do that so possibly part of the problem is other road users don't understand the correct form of signal because not everyone uses them.

When I've been on foot I've had near misses with bikes, cars and larger vehicles running red lights at traffic light controlled pedestrian crossings. In one case where there were two lanes a lorry in the outside lane pulled further forward than it should have done but stopped and prevented me from seeing the inside lane and a van ran the red light. If I had stepped on to the crossing 1 second earlier it would have almost certainly put me in hospital. I think cyclists can face similar issues in that a vehicle running a red light or pulling too far forward can block their view when they have right of way and cyclists aren't big or loud enough to be seen or heard by the driver of the vehicle who thinks it's OK to run a red light if it's just changed.

Traffic lights which stay green for the major road, unless a vehicle is waiting on the minor road are a nightmare for cyclists. They can't detect a cyclist meaning the only legal options you have are to remain there until a vehicle appears behind you or get off and push your bike around the corner, then remount a la the Mr Bean sketch where he saw the cyclist do that to avoid a red light and then did the same with his Mini! Many instead mount the pavement or cycle through red light and then treat the junction as a junction without traffic lights, neither of which are technically legal even if the second option does seem sensible. The exception being if the pavement has a pedestrian/bike shared space sign.

 

[peters]

I had a car turn out of a side road into Holgate Road, as I was going down the hill from Holgate Bridge (the big iron bridge you see from the train immediately south of York station); fortunately we both realised and slowed down considerably, though a collision was inevitable.

My front wheel rose onto the bonnet of the car, denting the bonnet. My bike was undamaged.

I was uninjured, other than a bit of shock, light bruising and a grazed ankle.

The driver blamed me, of course. A lorry driver nearby said he would back the driver up. I was told I'd get a call from his solicitor and would be paying for the bonnet damage. Needless to say, I got no call. I'm sure the driver found the conversation with their solicitor and insurer to be enlightening.

I think I missed the train I wanted to get but was able to catch it up by taking a later train, so it didn't affect me at all really. I was lucky.

Presumably you were in the cycle lane, so unless you were going at over 30mph I don't see how he could blame you. Perhaps he had heard about Nick Freeman 'Mr Loophole' and wanted to sue you for wearing the wrong colour clothing while on your bike or something ridiculous?

 

[matt_world2004]

Clearly she has an error of perception too. Car horns clearly are as she described (hence my point above that cars could do with having two different horn sounds*) though.

Maybe your the one with the error of perception considering journalists who cycle have described the bell repeatedly ringing as a form of aggression , I've described and you have said that some people who hear the bell ringing twice respond negatively.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Maybe your the one with the error of perception considering journalists who cycle have described the bell repeatedly ringing as a form of aggression , I've described and you have said that some people who hear the bell ringing twice respond negatively.

I'll leave it now as an exercise for the reader as to who will have a more enjoyable, relaxing life - someone who gets angry at every slightest thing or finds a way to consider it a slight or aggression, or someone who just seeks to accommodate others' needs as well as their own.

As for journalists, they are actively seeking to inspire debate and dissonance, aren't they, as that sells papers?

 

[matt_world2004]

I'll leave it now as an exercise for the reader as to who will have a more enjoyable, relaxing life - someone who gets angry at every slightest thing or finds a way to consider it a slight or aggression, or someone who just seeks to accommodate others' needs as well as their own.

As for journalists, they are actively seeking to inspire debate and dissonance, aren't they, as that sells papers?

Yet there are several threads on cycling forums too where they have described people responding negatively towards bell ringing hardly. A isolated few , is it

 

[py_megapixel]

Yet there are several threads on cycling forums too where they have described people responding negatively towards bell ringing hardly. A isolated few , is it

I'm not sure I even understand what you're trying to suggest here.

Banning use of bells on bikes?
Cyclists must get off and push if there is a pedestrian?
Neither of those sound workable to me.