ra19h ago

Škoda DuoBell: A bicycle bell that penetrates noise-cancelling headphones

https://www.skoda-storyboard.com/en/skoda-world/skoda-duobell-a-bicycle-bell-that-outsmarts-even-smart-headphones/

Škoda DuoBell: A bicycle bell that outsmarts even smart headphones - Škoda Storyboard

Pedestrians wearing headphones are exposed to an increased risk of accidents. In an effort to reduce collisions with cyclists, Škoda Auto, in collaboration with scientists, introduces an innovative bicycle bell whose sound can penetrate even active noise cancellation systems. In doing so, it helps prevent injuries to both pedestrians and cyclists.

Škoda Storyboard
Show thread0x3f

Do horns and bells really prevent accidents?

In order for e.g. a horn to work you need enough time that the driver processes the situation and decides the horn will communicate something AND enough time for the pedestrian or whatever to process that and react to it. Generally it's a lot easier just to press the brake, and more importantly be travelling at a speed and in a manner where the brake is sufficient.

Structurally, we'd be much better off reducing conflicts between the different tiers of users. I.e. properly segregated infrastructure for each class of vehicle.

Apr 8 at 10:16amWeb
Show threadeigenspace17h ago

A horn or bell is mostly for telling other people "hey I'm here, stay out of my way and dont suddenly cross into my path"

My opinion as a cyclist is that I should basically only be using my bell on pedestrians when the pedestrians are wandering onto the bike lane. If im cycling through a shared space, I find it extremely rude to ring the bell, because it feels like I'm telling people to get out of my way, but they have just as much right to a shared path as I do. Some cyclists ring their bells because they're worried a pedestrian might suddenly turn into their path, but I think if one is concerned about that, it's a sign youre cycling too fast, and should just slow down.

With cars, I will sometimes proactively ring my bell at them if I think they're not sufficiently aware enough of me though.

Show threadndsipa_pomu17h ago

> With cars, I will sometimes proactively ring my bell at them if I think they're not sufficiently aware enough of me though.

There's only a few types of car that will be "aware" of cyclists and I don't think ringing a bell will help their algorithms. Getting the attention of a driver, meanwhile, is difficult with a bell as often they'll be in a semi-soundproof cage with loud music on. (Also deaf drivers are a thing).

I've never really considered using a bell for motorised traffic. I did once buy a loud air-horn, but it was so loud and abrasive that I never used it as it seemed really rude.

Show threadeigenspace16h ago

> I've never really considered using a bell for motorised traffic.

It works surprisingly well if the car isn't moving quickly. Cars aren't as sound isolating as you'd think. My main use-case is that a car is stopped at an intersection, or crossing my lane so they can turn, and I'm worried they'll pull out and hit me because they're looking the wrong way focused on car traffic, and in these situations they almost always hear my bell.

Show thread0x3f17h ago

I think bells do have a communication use of course, just not really to be used as an emergency 'an accident is about to happen, immediately take action'.

At least a bell sounds relatively polite if you're not spamming it. A horn is a bit aggressive, you have to modulate it.

In a car I use two short tapped toots as a polite kind of 'excuse me' e.g. if someone hasn't noticed a light turning green. That seems more friendly than a sustained blast.

On the bike with a bell I'll just say thank you as I pass, if they've moved for me. Usually seems to go down well enough.

Show threadlqet17h ago

> If im cycling through a shared space, I find it extremely rude to ring the bell, because it feels like I'm telling people to get out of my way, but they have just as much right to a shared path as I do

Older folks on e-bikes love to do this. I highly suspect that they are unable to hold their heavy e-bikes upright on lower speeds, so they have to aggressively plow through pedestrians.

Show threadwalletdrainer17h ago

> If im cycling through a shared space, I find it extremely rude to ring the bell, because it feels like I'm telling people to get out of my way, but they have just as much right to a shared path as I do.

It’s certainly rude to ring the bell in a aggressive manner, but many bells are capable of producing much softer, more polite sounds.

In super busy old European capitals I find that people increasingly just ride around with speakers playing a constant tune at a reasonable volume, a massive improvement on dense streets full of varyingly sober people.

Show threadeigenspace16h ago

I still think that ringing bells at people is a little rude, regardless of the tone. Like imagine if you were at the grocery store, blocking the isle and someone lightly chimed a bell at you instead of just saying "excuse me".

IMO if I'm in a dense pedestrian zone and I can't go around people and I can't communicate by voice, it means I'm going too fast.

Show threadlxgr17h ago

> Do horns and bells really prevent accidents?

They absolutely do, for indirect reasons:

> Generally it's a lot easier just to press the brake

Maybe easier, but it hardly seems fair, nor realistic.

With a bit of experience, you can tell when pedestrians are likely to stumble onto the bike lane without looking. Then you have two choices: Significantly reduce your speed, or ring your bell first and only reduce speed if they still haven't noticed the oncoming bike.

If you only reduce speed, you'll be traveling at a very low average speed, and time is money (especially for bike delivery workers, but I also hate having to sharply decelerate for people glued to their screen or otherwise completely unaware of their surroundings even if I'm not in a rush), so you can take a guess as to whether "just reducing your speed" is practicable.

Show threadndsipa_pomu17h ago

I get your point about not wanting to reduce speed, but it's worth considering how the law might react in a worse-case scenario.

Here in the UK, there was an infamous case of Charlie Alliston who ended up getting a ridiculous 18 months prison sentence after colliding with a pedestrian who hit her head and subsequently died. He was riding a "fixie" without a front brake and was cycling at around 18mph through some green traffic lights. The pedestrian was crossing the road further on (i.e. not at a junction which is fairly normal) and wasn't paying enough attention, so Charlie shouted at her to get out of his way. He started to reduce speed (rear brake only), but then decided that he could just aim for the gap behind her, but she then reacted to his shouting by stepping backwards into his path.

The point is that the judge awarded such a tough sentence partly due to Charlie not taking all available actions to avoid a collision and also because his bike was illegal to use on the road due to having just one brake. So, if you rely on a bell to clear your path, you could be held liable if they don't respond and you collide.

Show threadlxgr17h ago

To be clear, I am still reducing my speed if I don't get positive confirmation that I've been noticed or if there's not enough time for a reaction to even happen.

My bell just gives me the significant improvement of possibly getting a reaction from the pedestrian long before I need to start braking.

However, not everybody does cycle like that. And while legally and ethically dubious, the bell still helps in that case as well.

Show thread0x3f17h ago

> If you only reduce speed, you'll be traveling at a very low average speed, and time is money

Well this is a bit of an appeal to consequences. I would say (a) this is a very good reason to build dedicated infra, and (b) if something ever does happen, a court is really not going to take this line of reasoning very well, so be careful with it... even if in practice it's how you consider it.

Show threadlxgr17h ago

I'm completely in favor of building dedicated infrastructure, but I can't do that by myself. (Also, how do you prevent pedestrians from crossing said dedicated infrastructure without looking? Should it be fenced off? But I agree that there are better and worse implementations of dedicated bike lanes.)

What would you suggest cyclists do until that happens? Never go faster than walking speed? Then I can leave my bike at home. Cycle on the road, where cars can hit me, instead of the dedicated bike lane, use of which is often mandatory?

> a court is really not going to take this line of reasoning very well

A court will rule in favor of the pedestrian stepping onto a bike lane without looking getting hit by a bike that's too close to do anything?

Show thread0x3f17h ago

> What would you suggest cyclists do until that happens? Never go faster than walking speed? Then I can leave my bike at home. Cycle on the road, where cars can hit me, instead of the dedicated bike lane, use of which is often mandatory?

I don't know where you live but it's quite unusual here to be cycling through areas that have a lot of pedestrians. If the bike lane is a dedicated one, pedestrians are very rarely in it. But yes if all else fails, the road is preferable to the pavement if you're unwilling to cycle slowly enough.

> how do you prevent pedestrians from crossing said dedicated infrastructure without looking?

That's a UX problem. You can also ask how to prevent cars driving on the cycle lane. Which we do in a multitude of ways. You just need to physically communicate segregation and danger.

> A court will rule in favor of the pedestrian stepping onto a bike lane without looking getting hit by a bike that's too close to do anything?

Here, absolutely, if they consider the cyclist is going too fast for the conditions. There's a concept of a hierarchy whereby the more vulnerable class is almost assumed not to be at fault. Same for a car hitting a cyclist, or a motorbike, even.

Show threadlxgr16h ago

> If the bike lane is a dedicated one, pedestrians are very rarely in it.

Pedestrians step onto the dedicated bike lane I use to commute on average at least once per way for me.

> But yes if all else fails, the road is preferable to the pavement if you're unwilling to cycle slowly enough.

Of course I'm taking the road if there's no dedicated bike lane. Cycling faster than walking speed on the sidewalk seems reckless to me.

> That's a UX problem. You can also ask how to prevent cars driving on the cycle lane. Which we do in a multitude of ways. You just need to physically communicate segregation.

Yes, but I can only use the bike lane that already exists. Of course I prefer the ones with better UX.

> There's a concept of a hierarchy whereby the more vulnerable class is almost assumed not to be at fault.

Not where I live. You are allowed to e.g. trust adult pedestrians without any visible signs of impairment to not randomly step into the road. Otherwise, driving cars next to sidewalks or crossing intersections would only be possible at walking speed as well.

Of course, if you already see somebody approaching the road, somebody walking unsteadily, visibly intoxicated etc. you are obliged to still brake. The question here is whether visible noise-cancelling headphones would be considered a similar visible impairment, I suppose.

Personally, I just always assume I haven't been noticed, because ultimately I don't want to run somebody over even if I would be legally in the clear. That's a different story, though.

Show threadshermozle17h ago
A car company wanting to divert attention away from the carnage cars cause. Seems a bit suspicious no?
Show threadcroemer17h ago
In Skoda's defense, it has a long tradition of making bicycles as well
Show threadi_am_proteus17h ago

Bicycle bells are mostly for warning pedestrians when approaching from behind and passing on shared-use trails. I ride on shared infrastructure and cannot afford to build new infrastructure when my town will not. Not warning a pedestrian when approaching from behind introduces the possibility of collision if the pedestrian makes a sudden change in his walking course. I typically use this etiquette:

Passing a single pedestrian or runner on a quiet day: no bell, coasting for a short bit with a loud free hub (the rotating ratchet element on the rear wheel) alerts the pedestrian to my presence.

Passing a runner: normal ring from a distance so they have knowledge that the bicycle is passing

Passing a cyclist: one loud ring from a distance

Passing a pedestrian walking a dog: two loud rings, one far, one close, so that the pedestrian is aware of the approaching bicycle and he can prevent his dog from running at me/colliding. Many dogs do seem to enjoy a bicycle chase.

Antisocial pedestrians (i.e., walking side-by-side such as to be blocking the path in both directions, preventing the bicyclist from passing): several loud rings of the bell until the antisocial activity has abated. Announcements in my local tongue (not English) that they impede the flow of traffic.

Show thread0x3f17h ago
Right it has a wider non-emergency comms purpose, I do this too. But I wouldn't do it and assume they've heard or understood, and so overtake too fast on that assumption. The overtake should be safe regardless.
Show threadnoio16h ago

I wonder if you are German?

Spending some time in Germany from Holland I notice there is a significant difference in cycling etiquette :)

Especially regarding “passing a cyclist” which also touches on the essential difficulty with having only one “ring” sound.

Always when Germans pass me on the bike and they ring I get slightly annoyed because I interpret it as a “get out of the way” ring, and I feel like there is enough space. But perhaps it’s just the cautious “don’t do anything unexpected” ring.

A Dutch person would rarely ring at another cyclist in the former way. But they also might be less safety focused while cycling (see also: helmet usage). Or we have safer infrastructure already.

On a road bike, however, I too ring at pedestrians “preemptively”. For sure GPs remark of “if you need to ring you’re going too fast” applies here but that’s the essence of road cycling.

Ironically I’m also annoyed when road cyclists ring at me for the same reason.

Just shows the case for having 2 clearly different types of rings.

(Also for cars to have a “thank you” horn, haha)

Show threadfuryg316h ago

I've been a cyclist in SF and in Amsterdam, both for many years.

In SF I used my bell much more aggressively. It was mainly for cars, if I'm in or entering their blind spot and my spidey sense tells me they are considering an action that places me in danger. For example, we all know when driving when the car in front of us is thinking about merging, even before they indicate (often I feel like I know before they do). I also used it for pedestrians stepping out into the street who are maybe looking past me for oncoming cars but somehow don't see me, or when approaching 'blind' situations like a sharp corner, a driver pulling out of a driveway but there is a tree between us, delivery drivers stepping out from their truck, etc. I can't say how many accidents have been prevented (the person may have eventually looked and seen me), but I can say that my bell has triggered people to look and see me earlier than they were going to had I not rang it.

In Amsterdam my bell is used much more sparingly. It's mostly for tourists stepping into (or considering stepping into) the bike lane. If they are already in the bike lane, I almost always prefer just to slow down a bit and dodge them, as ringing the bell often triggers a deer-caught-in-headlight moment or erratic behavior, which increases the chance of an accident or that I have to come to a full stop. The other situation is to express dissatisfaction at cars blocking bike lanes, cars/bikes not yielding, drivers blocking intersections, or other dangerous behavior. This isn't preventing an accident but I'd argue it is still important, as social control affects how often we make bad decisions. Outside the city I also use my bell to let other cyclists know I'm passing.

So yeah, I'd say bells prevent accidents, but obviously not as well as good biking infrastructure, where pedestrians, bikes, and cars have clear separate spaces, and visibility of cyclists to drivers is high.