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.

▲

paganel 9 hours ago | parent [-]

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.

▲

fleebee 8 hours ago | parent | next [-]

Where I live, generally if you're allowed to use a road or a lane, you have equal rights to others using it. On a road, cyclists have equal rights to motorists; on shared lanes, pedestrians don't have special rights and are expected to walk near the edge.

Your worldview (mostly) applies to pedestrian crossings but that's the extent of it.

▲

bdavbdav 7 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

I think that’s probably quite a selfish world view (and also quite arrogant to claim your own view is hard to argue against - of course you would find it hard to argue against, that is moot…)

When there is infrastructure to support all 3 kinds of users, it seems a lot more equitable for everyone to use the space cooperatively.

I absolutely agree one should give way to more vulnerable road users, but that all 3 can have better outcomes (safety, speed of journey, efficiency etc) it all use it cooperatively and conscientiously.

To labour the point, on shared cycle and pedestrian paths with a line down the middle, does a bell ring combined with slowing down to a safe speed not seem like an appropriate warning?

▲

tpm 8 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

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.

	▲	gs17 an hour ago \| parent \| next [-]
		> and I give priority to pedestrians when I'm riding my bike Even when you "actually want to get somewhere"?
	▲	paganel 3 hours ago \| parent \| prev [-]
		> they just don't have time for that? They for sure have time for that. When I drive my car can't use that as an excuse.