ra14h 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 thread0x3f13h ago

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.

Show threadlxgr12h 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_pomu

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.

10:46amWeb
Show threadlxgr12h 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.