Here is a good article from the Guardian newspaper in England.
As if cyclists didn't have a bad enough deal already, now they face fines for failing to sound the bell
Considering their incidence in the population, cyclists crop up an awful lot in traffic proposals. Ken Livingstone is considering mandatory numberplates for bikes in London. There were noises not so long ago about obliging cyclists to use cycle paths. The most recent and most absurd proposal is for cyclists to sound a little bell, continually, to warn pedestrians of their approach. Cyclists found not using a bell under this scheme would be liable for a fine between £30 and £2,500, or - for persistent, unrepentant non-bell-ringers - two years in prison.
Article continues
Demanding a licence plate for bikes might be a good idea when the capital swarms with them, when the streets are alive with the silent bustling of this lovely form of transport; but until such time a mayor with any sense of civic and indeed global responsibility would be trying to make it easier for people to cycle, not harder. As for cycle paths: of course the tacit objective of almost all transport documents is to make life easier for the private car, but rarely is that stated so openly. Cycle paths are often badly maintained; even well-maintained ones are the site of all manholes and drains, which make them not always the most appropriate place for a cyclist. They're often full of glass, they cross bus lanes, they stop abruptly - they are outrageously rubbish. If any council in the country has anything to say to cyclists about cycle paths, it should be: "We are terribly, terribly sorry."
The bell-ringing proposal is to warn pedestrians of one's approach. This, bear in mind, is as a road-user - every time you see a pedestrian, who may or may not wish to cross the road, you must ring your little bell. Never mind, why can't the pedestrian look both ways? That courtesy extends only to cars. Cars are legitimate road-users. Cyclists are a public nuisance.
When you look at the proposed prison sentence, you would assume that this was a very serious problem, a priority of the road agenda, a major cause of injury and fatality. In fact, 12 pedestrians have been killed in collisions with cyclists in the past five years. More pedestrians have been killed by every other conceivable variety of road-user, apart from other pedestrians (and naturally I am not including in that figure the pedestrians who mug one another). More pedestrians than that have been killed by bus drivers in the past six months. You would never see any legislation aimed straight for the jugular of the bus driver, with purpose-built stupid sentences.
There has long been a background hum of unfairness in the way cyclists are treated. Twenty years ago you'd see signs aimed at motorists saying: "Cyclists need three feet." Now you see signs aimed at cyclists, saying: "Beware, bus is 18 metres long." Like they could possibly miss it! But the debate is becoming unfair to the point of being irrational. There is always air-time for people saying: "But they cycle on the pavements! They shoot red lights!" Whereas if you were to take an equivalent motoring infraction - let's call it breaking the bloody speed limit, which poses a much greater danger to pedestrians, which is committed by a far greater proportion of motorists - where's the pivot of the argument? It's "are speed traps fair? Or are they just plain mean?" That is to say: "We all intend to break the law. We do wish people would stop trying to catch us."
I used to think, from a long-term point of view, that cyclists should be treated better than any other road-user. That just seems hopeless now, since the more sensible cycling becomes - from an energy conservation point of view, from a health perspective - the more bizarre hostility is flung at it. I now think you should just treat bikes as you'd treat a car. Acknowledge their right to exist on the road. It's a small enough request, but it would make a massive difference.
