So #BikeTooter seems very excited by this noise-cancelling headphone negating bell, but I don't get it.

[pionir@masto.bike]

@BongoTwisty @pete

Isn't the last one just "dogs"

[bongotwisty@social.vivaldi.net]

@Pionir @pete Because rules are rules in the absence of consideration and common sense...

[jtwcornell91@hostux.social]

@nickzoic @pete speaking as both a pedestrian and occasional cyclist, it seems like a headphone-penetrating "on your left"/"on your right" would be more useful than just a bell.

[samueljohnson@mstdn.social]

@pete > pedestrians have priority. End of.

Not in the bike lane they don't. Try it in the Netherlands, you'll get it quickly.

The issue isn't simply a matter of entitlement in any case, but of safety. Pedestrians walking in or potentially about to step into a bike lane can and often do endanger others as well as themselves. Sure, some are deaf. Some wear bone conducting headphones so they can hear ambient sounds. Some are absent minded. Others think they can do what they like with impunity.

[isthmus@infosec.exchange]

@pete
Pedestrians being top of the hierarchy of road users I agree with (Highway Code H1). And there should be no expectation of a clear run – cyclists need to be prepared to slow down and stop if necessary. It's up to the cyclist to safely maneuverer around them.

However, I disagree that there are no benefits to them hearing you. Bell aren't to tell them to get out of the way, but to let them know you're there.

I have a Timber! bell that just constantly jingles like a bear bell. Dog walkers absolutely prefer that than being startled when a silent bicycle overtakes them.

[ytc1@mastodon.sdf.org]

@jtwcornell91 @nickzoic @pete and still they step Infront of you....
If they walked on the right (as per HWC #2, and applied that to shared paths, then we would have zero issue.
Especially when confronted by a group, who you pre advise with a ding and then half go left z half go right, followed by both sets thinking the other is right and swapping sides multiple times.
Mean while their short arsed dog dives between your wheels :⁠-⁠)

[ytc1@mastodon.sdf.org]

@ClintonAnderson @Cycling_Liz @pete no, they have priority.
It's different.
There is no right of way in the highway code

[cycling_liz@mastodon.social]

@ClintonAnderson @Pionir @pete @zebulonmysterioso I suggest you read my comments again. I'm not repeating myself and I believe some of these responses are made in bad faith. It's not Twitter and people are behaving like it is. Wrong side of bed? 🫩

[ytc1@mastodon.sdf.org]

@ClintonAnderson @pete @zebulonmysterioso @Cycling_Liz buses do. #HWC223

[dymaxion@infosec.exchange]

@pete
The legal structure here depends on the country. In Finland, pedestrians do not have the right to walk on a bike lane with an adjacent pedestrian path. They are legally required to move out of the way, just as they're not allowed to walk in the middle of a car lane.

[n1ck@beige.party]

@ClintonAnderson @Cycling_Liz @Pionir @pete @zebulonmysterioso the flip side of that is

"i can explain it to you but i can't understand it for you"

[sqwabb@mstdn.ca]

@pete Do pedestrians in the UK have priority even when they absent-mindedly dart into the street at the mid-point of a block? (in Canada this is called jay-walking & is generally illegal.) What about when pedestrians walk aberrantly in a back alley? (do you have back alleys in the UK?) And what about *other* cyclists wearing noise-cancelling earbuds?