Bell Etiquette

I use my bell for the same reason - to let people I'm overtaking know I am there (in the context of other cyclists). I used to just say "on your right" or "coming through on your right" but according to a previous thread on here apparently that was wrong too...

I think some people just want to be offended, but it could just be she was getting stressed with the traffic and passes and was venting in general. So my opinion is carry on using your bell.

I'd take it as equivalent of beeping a you pass somebody when driving.
Generally indicates that the person was in some way in the wrong and 'in your way'.
The response you received sounds fairly typical, especially if as you say other had already passed her, so there was obviously enough space being left etc.

What did you intend to indicate or achieve by ringing the bell?

schemingbohemia wrote: »

I'd rather people let me know they are overtaking me (where there is limited overtaking space) given the occasional need to move off my line due to potholes or drains, I don't tinkle every overtake!
To be honest the other two cyclists who overtook her went too close to her in my mind, if she had veered off course even a little bit there could have been a collision, I was simply making her aware that I was about to overtake so she should ensure she stayed straight.

In fairness it isn't up to her to make your overtake easier. If she needs to avoid a pothole when you are overtaking her it's your responsibility to have left her room to do that. So saying that ringing your bell somehow puts the onus on her to "stay straight" is unreasonable in my opinion.
I wouldn't ring the bell it will just irritate people.

I don't do it generally, but when I do I would say thanks as I pass. It might make more sense to the other cyclist then. Most don't use bells, and most don't know of any etiquette, so I can see how the person got mad as a result. I've been sworn at by pedestrians in bike lanes when I ring mine, full on aggression, so I reckon most just see it as a car horn equivalent.

schemingbohemia wrote: »

Ok so no agreement on etiquette, fair enough.
It was definitely a short Ding rather than a long ding just to be clear.

I had waited quite some time to overtake in what I regarded as a safe manner where I would be giving her a lot more space than the previous cyclists had.
I'm not a quick cyclist at all and where possible on that road I do keep to the left to leave as much space as I can for other cyclists to overtake me.

Don’t worry about how much space the previous person left, that’s irrelevant.
If you feel you could pass the slower cyclist safely, without endangering her or yourself, then there’s absolutely no need to ring a bell.

I think we don’t use bells enough in this country.
It’s important the bell has a pleasant tone if that makes any sense.
I use mine a fair bit on shared surfaces where you have a lot of pedestrians etc that might have headphones on or might be in their own little world.
I’d always pass leaving plenty of space and slowing down a little to ensure I don’t come across as aggressive.
I’d often use it in circumstances where sailing past might spook someone... but I’d ring way ahead.
I think it’s just courtesy... in France if you hear a bell you just move over... I suppose out on the road there should be less use for it but as greenways etc start to develop in this country it’s a good thing to have on the bike.
I encourage my kids to use them all the time, but to use them in time and not aggressively.
Marty.

schemingbohemia wrote: »

she says as I overtake - "Ding Ding yourself"

The correct response to this is...

tommythecat wrote: »

schemingbohemia wrote: »

I'd rather people let me know they are overtaking me (where there is limited overtaking space) given the occasional need to move off my line due to potholes or drains, I don't tinkle every overtake!
To be honest the other two cyclists who overtook her went too close to her in my mind, if she had veered off course even a little bit there could have been a collision, I was simply making her aware that I was about to overtake so she should ensure she stayed straight.

In fairness it isn't up to her to make your overtake easier. If she needs to avoid a pothole when you are overtaking her it's your responsibility to have left her room to do that. So saying that ringing your bell somehow puts the onus on her to "stay straight" is unreasonable in my opinion.
I wouldn't ring the bell it will just irritate people.

This is completely wrong the terrible bike lanes can require evasive action any time and if separated will not leave room for avoiding a colission. As such using your legally required (I believe?) is a good idea. I feel safer ringing to overtake and do it all the time. I do it well in advance of overtaking

tommythecat wrote: »

What am I wrong about exactly? Ringing the bell doesn’t make your overtake any safer if you haven’t left room for them to avoid obstacles in front of them safely. The onus is on you to make sure you are overtaking safely, not them.

Yeah, if you're passing so closely that you're worried them changing line in a small way will result in a collision, then you're carrying out a dangerous passing manoeuvre.

Cycling along the N11 cycle path this morning when I had to swerve to avoid a slightly sunken man-hole cover, at precisely the moment a cyclist from behind decided to overtake me! Our bikes interlocked for a couple of seconds before we mutually extracted ourselves and carried on. While I felt somewhat responsible and apologized during the tryst, why oh why cant fellow cyclists (a) buy and use a bell and (b) leave reasonable space when overtaking another cyclist. The 1.5m is not just for cars..

Sometimes it's hard to know how people react to a bell ringing behind them. I was on the cycle path in the Phoenix Park a couple of weeks ago, didn't ring the bell and I got a torrent of abuse for not warning the walker in the lane ahead of me of my approach.
A week later, same situation, this time I gave the bell a gentle ring to warn the walker ahead of me on the cycle path, this time I got a sneering look and a "so you got a bell for your birthday" remark. It's a no win. :rolleyes:

I wouldn't do or say anything as I overtake, I would simply make sure I had enough space to complete the maneuver and it was safe to so (same as any other vehicle really).

One thing I notice is that often cyclist will overtaking without checking over their right shoulder (to see if there is someone else doing an overtaking maneuver).

vektarman wrote: »

Sometimes it's hard to know how people react to a bell ringing behind them. I was on the cycle path in the Phoenix Park a couple of weeks ago, didn't ring the bell and I got a torrent of abuse for not warning the walker in the lane ahead of me of my approach.
A week later, same situation, this time I gave the bell a gentle ring to warn the walker ahead of me on the cycle path, this time I got a sneering look and a "so you got a bell for your birthday" remark. It's a no win. :rolleyes:

Ring the bell all you like at pedestrians who are in the way. Same as you would beep a person standing in the road when driving.
Somebody actively getting in the way by standing/walking/dismounting on the cycle path or road shouldn't be there and almost always deserves all bell ringing, shouting etc at your disposal.

I still think ringing your bell at another cyclist who is going slower and therefore 'in your way' is being a bit of a **** in most scenarios. Cyclists can get stuck in traffic too, just gotta sick it up till the is actually enough space to pass

Alanstrainor wrote: »

A cyclist overtaking another cyclist is a silent operation

Not with some of the freehubs out there :pac:

CramCycle wrote: »

If I recognise the cyclist and know they are OK (a very small subset I know), or they look behind and acknowledge me, I overtake on the bike path. If they don't and I am significantly faster, I hop into the bus lane when clear and carry on. The guy on the N11 with the bell that he uses constantly and in situations where the other party cannot accomodate him is the reason i don't use them. He is actually a massive ******* and I don't want people to think of me in the same league as him.

On the infrequent occasions I come up behind a slower cyclist I usually drop down to the road too, if safe; this sometimes results in me shouting and gesticulating back at the path to a bus or taxi that arrives afterwards but before there's an opportunity to roll back on the path, and harasses me. (This is one of the reasons I have problems with most of the "off road cycling infrastructure" - too narrow for safe overtaking without having to alert the person in front, and alerting is too socially awkward!) If it's a pedestrian (usually with headphones and/or dogs) I add a dirty look backwards with head-shake from the road. I usually avoid 'shared use' paths through parks also, as about half the walkers are in the middle of the path, even if alone, or on the wrong side, or playing with a dog - if anywhere should be suitable for bell this situation, but again, I can't imagine having and using a bell, so I usually go past on the grass with a head shake.

Rechuchote wrote: »

I also use my bell when going along paths, eg Milltown Park, and approaching people walking and obviously engrossed in conversation or listening to the radio or walking their dogs.

On the footpath.. if that is what you mean by "path", the pedestrian has the right of way there. If it's a cycle path fair enough, but ringing at people to get out of the way, where you shouldn't really be in the first place? That's a bit crap.

Interesting thread.
What is the RSA position or instructions on it?

I could only find the following
http://www.rsa.ie/Documents/Campaigns/Wrecked/Downloads/Cycle%20safety%20booklet.pdf

apart from stating the following (which is correct)

“It’s the law to have a bell on your bike at all
times and to have working lights.”

cannot find any information on when to use a bell.

1874 wrote: »

Theres no comparison though,
bicycles can and do move along quite silently, and a bell is better to call out a warning, here I am, people can take offence so easily over a spoken comment, but a bell means Im here, Im coming through, its a courtesy, seeing it any other way is ridiculous.
Being aware when they are overtaking you is too late,
If this really has to be explained to people and other cyclists in general, I shouldnt be, but Im dumbfounded, I really have believed it for quite some time, after being offended for being labelled stupid for how long? It turns out in the main, the Irish really are thick.

Have you ever driven a car or ridden a motorcycle? There is a very obvious and direct comparison.

If you are in a car with very good seals, or have a radio on.. guess what, you don't hear any traffic. A motorcycle can come along suddenly and overtake, which is a surprise due to the lack of sound.

The same is true on a motorcycle, if it has a loud engine / pipes, the only thing you can hear is.. your own engine and the sound of wind whistling through your helmet. Again, a faster driving motorcycle / vehicle can appear suddenly, surprising you as it overtakes.

In both of the above situations - the overtaking vehicle generally will not sound their horn. Because it's not the done thing, that is not the use of the horn, it's more likely to DISTRACT the person you are ovetaking, as they are trying to ascertain WHY exactly you are beeping at them, the same is true of a bell.

If I heard someone ringing behind me who then overtook, I would be wondering "what is wrong with that r/tard with their bloody bell". It rarely happens as I cycle quickly to get home fast in a sweaty heap though.

Also - a bell means "I'm here, I'm coming through?" As in, give me the right of way? If you are overtaking someone, you don't need that as you don't have the right of way.

Either overtake in the car lane if there is space to do so and traffic is moving, or don't dangerously overtake in an insufficiently sized cycling lane.

Macy0161 wrote: »

I use my bell for the same reason - to let people I'm overtaking know I am there (in the context of other cyclists). I used to just say "on your right" or "coming through on your right" but according to a previous thread on here apparently that was wrong too...

I may have said the same in that thread, but the problem with "on your right" is that if the recipient isn't used to hearing it, they may just hear "<something> RIGHT" and take it as instruction.

I actually experienced this with a runner up in the Wicklow hills last year. He was running away from me bang in the centre of the road. What to do? I chose "on your right", he veered right, I almost hit him. I left loads of space, but he was very nimble.

I put this (and the bell overtake issue) in the same class of problem as "do I indicate to drivers behind that I think they are OK to overtake", and reach the same conclusion: don't do it, because you have no idea how they will act on it, and you risk being partly at fault.

There are a few small cases where I find it useful to ring a bell.

The most compelling one is going around blind corners, such as on the cycleway from the Sandyford Road out to Marlay Park. The route shouldn't have blind corners with cyclists in close proximity going in opposite directions, but it does, and ringing the bell did help to avoid a collision between me going in one direction and two guys cycling side by side in the other direction going round the blind corner one day.

If you're passing a parked van and there are some people around the front of it that you think might walk out into the road to access something in the van is a similar case.

The other is to let someone know that if they continue on their current trajectory that you're going to collide. Such as pedestrians about to step off the footpath without looking in your direction, cyclists about to ignore the yield sign on their side road, that sort of thing.

But overtaking, you don't need to ring a bell or on-your-right. If the person you're passing is the type that habitually wanders way off-line, they're also the type of person who has no idea what "on your right" means, and they're also the type who'll assume you ringing a bell means you want them to make room for you, or that you're chastising them in some way.