Comment by yladiz

14 hours ago

What is the right problem that should be solved here?

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

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

    • 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.

      1 reply →

People shouldn't really be walking around in public with ANC on. It's not safe. Not a simple problem to solve except maybe to inform people better upon buying/setting up ANC-enabled devices.

  • Why are they walking around with ANC, you think? Maybe the sound of traffic (cars). They're also the ones posing the danger to cyclists and pedestrians. The solution is simple.

  • or cyclists should have their own lanes, pedestrians shouldn't walk on them - and vice versa. and if you're stuck behind someone slow just overtake them when you can.

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

  • The sense of entitlement of cyclists knows no bounds. If cars are liable for running over cyclists then cyclists must be liable for running over pedestrians.

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

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

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

    • 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.

      3 replies →

Fines. No one should cross roads/paths randomly, with or without headphones.

One large fine, and people will learn.

  • 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.

  • 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.