ra20h 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 threadpatates19h ago

Draw a line, say this is for bicycles, pedestrians and cars have no business here, and bikes have no business being on any other lane as long as these exist.

When bikes have to go through areas where people walk freely, they need to limit their speed to a walking pace.

People should not wear headphones (noise-cancelling or not) when going through traffic as pedestrians. Take them off when crossing!

People should not hear loud music when driving - max is normal speaking voice level. Bike drivers should never hear any music, let alone wearing headphones. Behind-ear speakers on low could be a compromise.

Hey, we just solved 90% of the accidents.

Show threadsoco19h ago
This only leaves open how to enforce all of it without everybody shouting domestic terror.
Show threadwizzwizz419h ago

How do we enforce seatbelts? (1) Assume the public aren't stupid. (2) Assume the public aren't murderers. (3) Explain the risk-benefit analysis through informative videos like https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Julie_(1998_film).

People can shout "domestic terror" all they like, but if it's not true, it's not true.

Julie (1998 film) - Wikipedia

Show threadlxgr

Wearing a seatbelt cost next to nothing in inconvenience. Not being able to listen to music or have phone calls with noise cancellation while walking does not really compare.

Of course this requires compensating for the loss in awareness through hearing by looking more diligently before crossing a bike lane, but unfortunately, some people never learn this, or only through a few close calls.

"Annoyingly" ringing a bell and converting a potential accident into a close call seems pretty close to optimal to me.

Apr 8 at 10:44amWeb
Show threadwizzwizz418h ago

"Next to nothing in inconvenience" is the perception now. It certainly wasn't the perception when seatbelts were introduced. The ability to listen to personal music while walking is less than 50 years old: before that, you had the radio or nothing. Even that would not be an intolerable inconvenience for most. But I was more thinking:

> People should not hear loud music when driving - max is normal speaking voice level.

which feels like a more than acceptable constraint to me.

Show threadlxgr18h ago

> People should not hear loud music when driving - max is normal speaking voice level.

Oh, completely agreed on that one. In a car, you are also by far better protected than any cyclists you might encounter, so you shouldn't make it harder to hear their signaling. (I still wouldn't rely on any car having heard my bell if I don't get any other confirmation that the driver has noticed me, e.g. sufficiently slowing down as they are approaching the intersection where I have right of way.)

But GGP also said

> People should not wear headphones (noise-cancelling or not) when going through traffic as pedestrians. Take them off when crossing!

and that's what I think goes too far. Why should I remove my headphones if I look both ways before crossing a bike lane or road?

The ideal rule would of course be that only those pedestrians remove their headphones that are otherwise inattentive... Although I have my doubts that they'd remember.