The history of mandatory bicycle bell laws in DC

Back in 2013, DC took the unusual step of allowing bikes to be ridden in the District without a bicycle bell, which is something the District had required for over 125 years  - and something a lot of other cities had required. The argument for no longer mandating them was that they were an add-on that did nothing for safety. 

The regulation dated back to 1884 when the DC Police updated their regulations to include several about bicycles, notably that bicycles have a bell or gong that is "sounded by the revolution of a wheel." The idea was to set a regulation similar to that of sleighs, which like bicycles, moved quietly and often surprised pedestrians at night. It seems that bicyclists had themselves to blame for the regulation as the Capital Bicycle Club (CBC) had written the District Commissioners in 1881 asking for rules requiring them as well as lights. 

By 1887, the CBC had changed its tune. The CBC noted that they no longer required members to have bells (or lamps) because they found them to be ineffective and asked the District to change the regulations of both. They argued that the rule, which was widely ignored, would create a public nuisance of constant ringing if actually followed. They also said that the law was unclear as to whether or not the bells were needed in the daytime, or when they needed to be rung at all. In one crash they highlighted, the operator of a wagon didn't stop when he saw a cyclists, hit him and then said he didn't need to stop because the cyclist didn't ring their bell. The CBC added that the "alarm of a bell is construed as an unauthorized order to clear the road" and has the effect of startling a pedestrian, which might make a collision more likely instead of less.(1)  In order to protest the law, one cyclist spent a day riding loops around the District Building with cowbells attached to his bike.(2)

By the end of the summer their advocacy had had some success. The regulations were updated to allow cyclists to decide when to ring the bell or gong. The requirement for lamps at night remained, but cyclists were given more leeway in choosing which design of light to use (not just the "bulls-eye" lamp).(3)

In 1888, local cyclists - this time the DC division of the League of American Wheelmen - again asked that the rules requiring lights and bells be removed. They argued that horsemen and private vehicle owners were not required to have them, and that it is better for cyclists to avoid pedestrians than to tell them to move out of the way.(4) They tried again in 1892, arguing that the lights were useless and expensive and the bells made cyclists careless.(5)

In the years in between, various people complained that the law was under-enforced or over-enforced, but it doesn't seem that cyclists continued to advocate for its removal. Since the law passed in 2013, there hasn't been much complaining about the lack of bells - but this being DC, there has been some. 

[I also learned that in the Palisades neighborhood, there used to be a velodrome called International Athletic Park and people came from far and wide to ride there. It was reportedly built by a real estate developer name William C. Clark, which is I suspect who Clark Street in the area is named for. The picture below shows it's location I think].

1. "Bicycles After Dark" The Evening Star, 6 July 1887  
2. "He Carried a Cowbell" The Evening Star, 28 July 1887
3. "Revised Police Regulations" The Evening Star, 14 July 1887
4. "Bicycle Bells and Lights" The Washington Post, 2 August 1888
5. "Bicycle Bells and Lights" The Washington Post, 12 July 1892

Comments

[contrarian]

Wash, posts like this are why you're the best.

[contrarian]

They argued that ... it is better for cyclists to avoid pedestrians than to tell them to move out of the way.

You've hit on one of my advocacy pet peeves, "warn before passing." Are drivers taught to honk their horns before passing? No, they're taught to wait until it's safe to pass before trying, and to leave a safe distance between themselves and the overtaken vehicle. "Warn before passing" sends absolutely the wrong message to cyclists, that ringing your bell makes it OK to pass no matter what the circumstances.

[Crickey]

If cars had bells, that would be fine. The issue is that the only device they are equipped with is made to be capable of being heard inside another car, meaning it's too loud for unprotected ears. I'd be fine with greater warnings to cyclists to pass safely, as I agree there is too much poor behavior out there. But the answer isn't discouraging bike bells on trails.

[Pepper Burly]

Glad they got rid of the bell law, no matter how unenforced and arbitrary it may be.

I still think it was another way for police to discriminate at will

[huskerdont]

"I also learned that in the Palisades neighborhood, there used to be a velodrome called International Athletic Park and people came from far and wide to ride there."

FFS sometimes I think I was born at the wrong time. That must have been pretty awesome viewing/riding.

[Purple Eagle]

@Contrarian - car drivers don't need to honk before passing other cars, because drivers are taught to stay in their lane and check before changing lanes. If pedestrians on multi-use paths behaved the same way there would be no need for bells. Bells should not be an excuse for cyclists to just barge past in an unsafe manner, but they are useful in that they warn pedestrians or slower riders that a cyclist is passing and thus they won't suddenly swerve into the path of the faster cyclist.

Somewhat related - yesterday on the Mt. Vernon trail I was running, in a section of the trail close to the Parkway. Guy on a bike coming from behind me had a horn, which sounded like a car horn. I did not not realize it came from a bike until he called out. A horn like that is not very effective because other users think it comes from a car - and if you are on a trail you figure it's not directly at you.

[contrarian]

Sound like an AirZound:
https://deltacycle.com/airzound-horn

I've always wanted one, but I fear I can't be trusted to use it only for good.

[Purple Eagle]

Yeah, that was probably it. I imagine it would be an effective tool for riding in mixed traffic with cars, not so much on a trail - at least not a trail next to a road.

[Richard B]

@contrarian There are also no requirements for bicyclists or pedestrians to have mirrors. Car drivers have multiple mirrors to see if someone is overtaking them to the left (or right). Most bikers do not and no pedestrians have such elaborate mirror systems so the audible warning when passing is much more beneficial.

Plus given how many bikers are swerving all over the trail texting because they can't put their god forsaken phones down it has become even more necessary to have a bell or otherwise warn when passing.

[washcycle]

I have never seen a cyclist swerving around on the trail to text on their phone. Which trail are you seeing this on?

[Richard B]

@washcycle

MBT.

[washcycle]

Is that anyone else's experience? Because I've never seen that on the MBT.

[Richard B]

@washcycle

If I get bored this weekend I'll post some helmet cam. It's usually people on the red bikes and I would say I see it once per week.

[Crickey]

I've seen texting while biking a couple of times on the CCT.

[huskerdont]

I've seen it on city streets. Can't say if that's better or worse, but it's worse.

[Joe F]

… please people don't feed the troll. This post is about the history of bells and bikes. Don't let the anti bike troll hijack it and make it about something else.

[Richard B]

@Joe F

Part of the point of bike bells is to warn people when passing and it becomes necessary to do so more so when the bikers are not paying a damn bit of attention because they are staring at their phones. Its a tangent at best.

[Joe F]

As per all your other arguments you are only concerned about the rules that cyclists break. Cell use while driving and walking is far greater, but you don't care. Cell use by drivers is far more dangerous and kills a lot of people, but you don't care. Your argument should have been the bell is needed to warn the peds on their phones of the cyclist passing but as usual you trash cyclists instead of making a valid on topic argument. But good job! You've trolled well and had me make your on topic argument for you!

[Richard B]

@Joe F

I think you are the troll honestly. I am with wash cycle on his hatred of bike bell laws. I just think it’s become more meaningful to make sure you have one recently because of all of the self absorbed texters and bikers that need to be warned because IG is too GD distracting.