You are reading a single comment by @HousecatHST and its replies.
Click here to read the full conversation.
-
If you need to say something to someone, use your voice.
I'm not sure say anything in an emergency situation is a good idea at all from a cycling perspective. The CA case followed by this cases very much suggest that a cyclists will have it held against them in a way that a motorist using the horn wouldn't.
Much better to keep your mouth shut and if the worst happens rely on the cast iron get out of jail free card of "I didn't see" or "the sun was in my eyes" seams to work fine for motorists.
HousecatHST
Oliver Schick
Not only that, but the absence of such laws means the concept doesn't actually exist in Britain. :) This is a very good thing, a much-underrated freedom.
I don't agree. The vast majority of the time, it isn't even the slightest problem--if you know what you're doing. This present case is a vanishingly rare edge case. If there's some conflict, as a cyclist you can always initiate a police standoff--a friendly 'after you' will usually cause the other party to give up their resistance to your politeness. :)
There is no reason for having an airhorn on a bike whatsoever. Not justifiable. You shouldn't even need a bell. If you need to say something to someone, use your voice. There are only very few people with an impairment that prevents them from doing so.
The order is wrong. It should be: (1) insure (a basic sensible move, just become a member of a cycling organisation--the problem is that it's really aimed at middle-class people and many people on tight incomes can't afford it); (2) educate (consider cycle training, etc.); (3) improve infrastructure (although that really has no bearing on the present case). Obviously, 'lawyer up' is only in the event of a crash, so doesn't belong in this list.