A study conducted in the Netherlands has concluded that cyclists who listen to music through headphones or talk on their mobile phones while riding their bikes may be putting themselves at risk.
Published in the Journal of Accident Analysis and Prevention, the study did, however, observe that when it came to teenage cyclists, there was no such correlation.
Its authors suggested that cyclists listening to music or talking on their phone in a country with less cycling infrastructure than the Netherlands might be more at risk.
The research, conducted via an internet survey of 2,249 cyclists split into three age groups –16–18 years, 30–40 and 65–70 – aimed to analyse:
1 – the auditory perception of traffic sounds, including the sounds of quiet (electric) cars
2 – the possible compensatory behaviours of cyclists who listen to music or talk on their mobile phones, and
3 – the possible contribution of listening to music and talking on the phone to cycling crashes and incidents.
It concluded: “Results show that listening to music and talking on the phone negatively affects perception of sounds crucial for safe cycling.
“However, taking into account the influence of confounding variables, no relationship was found between the frequency of listening to music or talking on the phone and the frequency of incidents among teenage cyclists.
“This may be due to cyclists’ compensating for the use of portable devices.”
The authors added: “Listening to music or talking on the phone whilst cycling may still pose a risk in the absence of compensatory behaviour or in a traffic environment with less extensive and less safe cycling infrastructure than the Dutch setting.
“With the increasing number of quiet (electric) cars on the road, cyclists in the future may also need to compensate for the limited auditory input of these cars.”
The issue of cyclists wearing headphones is sometimes addressed at coroner’s inquests where the deceased was killed while riding a bike.
In an inquest held in December 2016 following the death of Emily Norton in Howden, East Yorkshire, the coroner said: “I cannot determine if she was on her iPhone listening with earphone at the time, but if she had been, it could have caused a distraction and could have contributed to the cause of the accident.”
In response to that case, both the road safety charity RoSPA and campaign organisation Cycling UK said that they discourage cyclists from wearing headphones.
Kevin Clinton of RoSPA said: “Hearing is an important sense when cycling as it gives riders warning about the approach of nearby vehicles and an idea of their speed. We advise cyclists not to wear headphones when riding.”
Cycling UK’s Duncan Dollimore said: “Our view is that wearing headphones is inadvisable, particularly if listening at high volumes or with headphones that completely shut out sound, but the idea that headphone wearing cyclists are any more of a problem than headphone wearing pedestrians is not borne out by any evidence we have seen.”
> Video: Cyclist collides with headphone-wearing runner
Occasionally, the prospect of a ban on cyclists wearing headphones is floated, for example by Boris Johnson when he was Mayor of London, reacting to the deaths of several cyclists in the capital in late 2013.
> Government ‘will not legislate’ for Mayor of London’s cyclist headphone ban
Many cyclists who choose not to wear headphones take the view that as vulnerable road users, they should avoid doing anything that might impair their awareness of the environment surrounding them.
But others maintain that they feel quite safe riding with them, and that a ban using headphones while riding would be akin to telling deaf people that they aren’t allowed to cycle.
Meanwhile, no-one talks about banning motorists from listening to music – something that can have fatal consequences for others.
> “Blaring music” meant driver didn’t know he’d hit cyclist, court told
69 thoughts on “Dutch study: Using headphones “Negatively affects perception of sounds crucial for safe cycling””
Don’t forget about deaf
Don’t forget about deaf people – they have the same legal right to get a driving license or ride a bike.
I wonder if anyone has done similar tests of car drivers listening to music whilst driving.
hawkinspeter wrote:
They have – and the results are inconclusive.
http://blog.esurance.com/does-music-make-you-an-unsafe-driver/
However, with cars as sound-proofed as they are, it’s not a sense that’s used a lot whilst driving. Contrast that to cycling where you use your ears about as much as your eyes in town.
Huw Watkins wrote:
Though then the test should surely be comparing sound-proofed modern cars with vehicles where you can hear your environment?
Really, all these studies fall down somewhat because the bottom line is that motorised vehicles are inherently dangerous to a degree that renders other distinctions (e.g. cycling with vs without headphones) rather minor.
It is useful to know these things, so people can make better-informed decisions for themselves (I don’t use headphones because I feel they negatively effect my concerntration), but the trouble is the tendency is for these studies to be used as a basis for making bad laws or just tiresome nagging and victim-blaming by people who choose to ignore the 4×4 in the living room.
hawkinspeter wrote:
But that’s nowt to do with safety and everything to do with the notion of ‘equality’.
And aren’t we supposed to say ‘hearing impaired’ in this new world that people have created for us?
Valbrona wrote:
Nope you are quite wrong.
In the 1920s, a few states (U.S.) implemented laws to deny driving licences to deaf people, but through education, those laws were repealed as there is no evidence that deaf people are less safe. So, it was because of equality AND safety that deaf people have the same right to drive as anyone else.
Deaf people generally prefer the terms “deaf” or “hard of hearing” rather than “hearing impaired” as there is a negative connotation to “hearing impaired”. (Some deaf people refuse to accept the “disabled” label and instead celebrate using sign language as part of their culture ).
hawkinspeter wrote:
one of the benefits in the UK of being deaf is that you can get a Disabled Person’s Railcard, which gives you and one accompanying adult 30% discount on your rail fare.
The only sign language I can do is “fuck off you dickheaded wanker”, and luckily I can usually lip-read the reply through the car’s windscreen.
ConcordeCX wrote:
Ah… like me you use the International Abbreviated Sign Language. I am heartened by the number of people that have taken the time to learn and practise it. Soon we shall all understand each other.
Valbrona wrote:
Nobody created a world for you, and that’s why you’re so wacky and controversial.
I think some people had a go, in Europe somewhere, about 80 years ago… Vaguely recall that it didn’t end well. Ask someone who’s read a book to fill in the gaps for you.
davel wrote:
Wacky and controversial is crediting Val with more brains than usually displayed. I can suggest another w and c word.
hawkinspeter wrote:
Well, deaf people somehow are able to compensate their hearing loss so it’s not the same.
bizm.ua wrote:
Genius, that.
My mate’s deaf. Says he can sense the arrival of a lorry behind him by picking up the vibrations through the fillings in his teeth.
Valbrona wrote:
I can sense the arrival of a lorry behind me by looking over my shoulder or seeing it in my mirror.
Deeferdonk wrote:
No doubt this cyclist sensed the lorry !
http://road.cc/content/news/232230-near-miss-day-58-lorry-driver-makes-very-close-pass-cyclist-and-then-pulls
although what action you might take I’m not really sure.
hirsute wrote:
That certainly would have got my spider sense tingling!
hirsute wrote:
This is what I do.
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=DiaqvSVwTWQ
bizm.ua wrote:
I’m guessing that they look around a bit more.
hawkinspeter wrote:
Given the increase in hybrid cars, I always look anyhow – you can’t rely on sound alone. I always assume there is someone behind me about to run me down.
hawkinspeter wrote:
Might be. Basically i was trying to say that we should not bring “deaf people” here. In fact we all know that listening to music while cycling does affect our ability to pay attention to riding conditions. Only question is how bad is that and should headphones be banned because of it.
bizm.ua wrote:
I disagree.
I see cycling as an enabling technology
Anyone who attempts to disuade people from cycling (e.g. schools making rules about how the kids cycle to school) is trying to exert control. We must push back against these bullies and insist that EVERYONE should be allowed to use a bicycle if they see fit. There’s plenty of people that find cycling easier than walking due to various “disabilities” and why should we get people to jump through hoops and prove their “need” to cycle?
You are trying to remove a whole sub-section of society from the discussion of cycling due to “safety” concerns when there is a substantial lack of evidence to support that.
I’m neither deaf, nor (physically) disabled, nor a woman, but I will support anyone’s right to cycle as should you.
hawkinspeter wrote:
Believe me i’m totally on your side here. I do support anyone’s right to cycle. I do my best to motivate my friends. Also i can’t imagine cycling without music. However i do understand that headphones indeed affect safety. At least i try to keep volume down or sometimes take those off completely on busy streets or on sections where there are lots of pedestrians nearby especially kids. I think it’s a huge topic and it deserves an unbiased discussion.
bizm.ua wrote:
I don’t think it is that huge a topic.
I’ve cycled a few times whilst wearing headphones and made sure that I used my eyes more as I usually rely on my ears for figuring out if I can cross a road or need to stop for a car coming round a corner etc. In the end, I decided that I preferred cycling without headphones, but that’s just my choice.
If we are to have an ubiased discussion on road safety, then I would bet money that headphones are way down the list (probably below dogs on extenda-leads).
bizm.ua wrote:
And the answer is no.
So how come car stereos are
So how come car stereos are still legal?
Who’s the more stupid?
Who’s the more stupid? Someone who rides around with earphones in, or the group of people who felt they needed to do ‘research’ to tell them that it’s unsafe?
Valbrona wrote:
You. You’re the most stupid.
hawkinspeter wrote:
that’s a very cruel thing to say. But funny, so it’s ok.
jlebrech wrote:
Because you are already in a relatively soundproofed box.
I don’t think I ever use sound to assist in my decision making when driving a car or riding a motorbike (except when someone blasts a horn or there is an emergy vehicle with sirens on), but I definately use sound when riding my push bike.
The issue around this and deaf people is interesting, is it that the music is distracting, rather than the issue of not hearing stuff?
If yes, then you are right to question stereos in cars, but then if you ban car stereos then you should also ban passengers in cars and group cycling, as presumably conversations with someone can be equally distracting.
In my state it’s illegal to
In my state it’s illegal to drive with headphones on (theoretically this would apply to cyclists too if it were enforced), but deaf people are legally allowed to drive. That’s bureaucratic logic for you.
When I raced, I trained with headphones to help boredom; but I only would wear one headphone at a time and keep an one open ear to help hear my surroundings. I don’t listen to music anymore though, because now I just ride for health and enjoyment, and music kind of misses the point of enjoying outdoors. That said, if someone wants to listen to music, have at it. Just be responsible.
Can you tell if you are about
Can you tell if you are about to the left hooked by the engine sound?
Cycling home in the dark on v
Cycling home in the dark on v busy roads, got overtaken by a guy in black with his rear light not working. Managed to catch up halfway round a 3 lane roundabout and shout.
“YOUR BACK LIGHT ISN’T ON!”
He pulls out a headphone and say “WHAT?”
“YOUR BACK LIGHT ISN’T ON!”
“YEAH, I KNOW!” and he rode off.
I did not think he was very senible.
grahamTDF wrote:
Work on your empathy a bit more – loads of people had been telling him about his rear liht for his whole journey. But he needed to get home and there was nothing he could do about the flat battery there and then was there.
the dutch already have a ban
the dutch already have form on this for headphones whilst cycling, yet another flawed study back in 2011 IIRC.
scientists at the University of Groningen found that “listening to music resulted in reduced visual and auditory perception and reduced speed”. The authors suggested this may reduce cyclist stability.
And yet as wearing headphones went up in the last 10 years deaths went down a LOT. They ignored the effects of e-bikes on the older generation which was the only group to show an upward trend in KSIs, partivcularly those that were buying pedalecs in huge numbers, in some age groups more than normal bicycles.
Florida state imposed a law against wearing headphones, instead of reducing deaths of people on bikes it went up massively, clearly and as per the norm ignoring the real threat on the roads!
“The ban does not appear to have had an effect on cycling fatalities though which increased in Florida by nearly 58 per cent from 76 deaths in 2010 to 120 deaths from cycling accidents in 2011.”
Quebec brought in a ban on headphones, there were 4 cycling deaths in a population of 1.6million, that year, not a single one was attributed to wearing headphones. and yet police are targetting bicyclists instead of focussing on the real dangers, sound familiar to australia??
Yet more bias/discrimination against people on bikes and a ‘study’ done by people whom are funded by the very government who already have a ban in place, again, Australia/helmets/Jake Olivier anyone?
Governments/EU allow huge amounts of distractions in vehicles that mean the operators kill and maim by the tens of millions every year around the world and yet a small potential reduction in hearing that may or may not result in a tiny, tiny fraction of a % of incidents are the focus. Go get fucked, how about banning phone zombies, that would have a bigger impact thousands of times over!
Oh and I never wear headphones, on bike, walking or in car, but to think that people on bikes wearing them is an issue is utter bollocks!
Great, so all those wonderful
Great, so all those wonderful new inventions of built in headphones in helmets make them even more useless.
I often find that Daily Mail
I often find that Daily Mail readers who are concerned that ‘cyclists might get themselves killed’ by riding with headphones/not wearing hi-vis, are also the same people who close-pass you doing 40-odd miles per hour.
Their concern for our welbeing is conditional as to whether we’re ‘in their way’ or not.
For me, people can wear headphones if they like. As long as their actions are not bothering me, they’re not bothering me.
I don’t get this… I’ve
I don’t get this… I’ve ridden with and without headphones.
On a mountain bike, I’d argue there is a difference, as the sound of the tyres will aid in judging grip levels.
On the road, I see no benefit to hearing other than to exerience the horror of realisation the split second before a vehicle rear-ends you.
Everything else, everything else, should be judged on vision and is therefore not essential.
Jimmy Ray Will wrote:
I wear a hearing aid in each ear. In one ear I am profoundly deaf in part of the range, and in the other ear it ranges down to severely deaf. Deafness is not binary, all or nothing, except possibly (I don’t know) where there is very severe nerve damage. Most people experience some degree of hearing loss as they age, although in my case it was the result of disease.
If I’m cycling other than a quick trip to the shops I take out my HAs because the wind noise is annoying (although can drown out the tinnitus, so maybe not so bad after all).
I have indeed developed a super-sense, which is the extra brains required to watch where the fuck I’m going, and always to be aware of what’s going on around me. They teach this in driving lessons, and also, If I remember correctly, in cycling proficiency. Being deaf is not obligatory.
I intend to get some made for iPhone HAs later this year, and they can be programmed to cancel wind noise, so I could perhaps wear the HAs more when I cycle, but frankly it’s a relief to take the damn things out usually, the world is so noisy.
https://youtu.be/-Yx99rr6wwc
The issue here is the
The issue here is the relative safety rather than safety – not having your tv on may give you a greater chance of hearing a burglar about to enter your house, with the risks so low, who cares?
The likelihood in most collisions is a car close passing me, pulling out on me or left hooking me; me hearing that happen makes no difference. I had one headphone in on Sunday, listened to ‘bespoke’ and heard the lady a mile from my house slam on the brakes trying to pass me on a single lane roundabout, i then saw her nearly left hook me. If I’d not had the headphone in I’m pretty sure I wouldn’t be able to teleport to safety!
I didn’t see anyone
I didn’t see anyone commenting on the stand out point for me from this article, cycling in less well developed countries. I cycle to music all the time and have done all my life (57). When I do cycle without headphones I still use the visual techniques I’ve developed because seeing is much more reliable than simply hearing.
I have ridden in India and Vietnam, and I definitely wouldn’t listen to music while cycling in Ho Chi Minh City. Manouvres are generally performed in parallel with a horn blow with no indication beforehand.
Worse than the fact that they
Worse than the fact that they sound proof cars and put stereos in, many now pump agressive engine tones in so the driver thinks their car sounds nice and mean. I mean, WTF?
alansmurphy wrote:
Just think when all the cars are electric and silent how peaceful the road will be.
Grahamd wrote:
I was passed by a Nissan Leaf the other day and I actually found it slightly disconcerting that all I could hear was the hiss of tyres on road…
Grahamd wrote:
Nah, I’d rather listen to a tuned to the hilt 2jz engine. Silent cars have no soul.
My headphone compromise is nearside earphone only. Best of both worlds then. You get run over, fully aware AND listen to Slayer.
The death of a woman riding a
The death of a woman riding a bike near Hull was highlighted in the news and the coroner made a complete guess at saying it was down to her having headphones on without a scrap of evidence. in fact the coroner made no attempt to seek why the HGV driver with excellent sight lines did not see the cyclist at all (his admittance) and why he cut the roundabout at speed or indeed if he was listening to music.
There was also the usual victim blaming because she hit her head and wasn’t wearing a helmet despite the fact it was a neck injury that killed her.
Why are distractions in motors not brought up specifically in this case relating to music/sounds which are within a sealed environment and indeed that sealing up/sound proofing means the driver cannot hear what is going on around them?
Two tier system yet again!
A study has shown that
A study has shown that undertaking studies on the bleedin’ obvious is obviously not needed.
Simmo72 wrote:
Just what I was thinking its not rocket science is?
HLaB wrote:
Except it isn’t that obvious… not to me. I don’t see the danger.
Please explain what is obvious. .. beyond the fact that hearing will undoubtably be imparied… however what use is hearing in real terms to road safety?
If they don’t make electric
If they don’t make electric cars whoosh along with a futuristic noise then what’s the point ?
I think I might wear
I think I might wear headphones–just the headphones–with no sounds coming through.
Hopefully this will discourage some stupid drivers from offering stupid comments as they drive by me, on the mistaken assumption that I can’t hear the stupid stuff they shout…..yes, you know who you are, just three feet from my right ear, yeah?
I think it gives you some
I think it gives you some degree of awareness before doing a shoulder check but you’d have to be relatively daft to make an erratic move without the check anyway.
The only real benefit I can see is hearing that a car isn’t braking for a roundabout or junction, maybe jumping a light on a hump back bridge. It possibly gives you a small chance of taking evasive action but again puts the ‘blame’ on the wrong road user and the risk must be in the 0.0000000000001%s
I fail to see how hearing
I fail to see how hearing would have influenced the behaviour of these drivers the other day. I had earphones in but could hear all of them perfectly adequately. Being able to hear them didn’t seem to affect them overtaking into oncoming traffic etc https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_zzK_GoGJcc
Did EU money pay for this
Did EU money pay for this waste of time.
Goes without saying.
hirsute wrote:
Yep, and it’s saved my ass a few times. They’re going the same speed but engine pitch rises, so gearing down and might be preparing to turn. So I ease up and let them take the turn, and accellerate past the turn once the vehicle is safely out of the way.
I don’t use headphones myself, as I pick up a lot of information about what’s going on around me from my ears. And it’s nice to be out in the open air enjoying the world, and hearing the sound of tyres on the road, and steady whirr of the chainset.
I just tried looking for the
I just tried looking for the research, but it appears to be behind a paywall. However, the abstract make it seem like a pretty poor result. The data was just from an internet survey in which they asked cyclists’ opinions on their ability to hear traffic noise and their opinion on how that affected their safety. So, the result is really that some age groups think that using headphones is more dangerous.
I’d be far more interested in actual accident rates rather than people’s perceptions of them.
This evening, I had a counter-example of where being able to hear was worse for me. I was going along a shared-use path and was about to join the road where a “compulsory” cycle lane starts (and the shared-use path ends). I signalled right, could see a car behind, but it didn’t seem dangerous, so I pulled to the right. The car then beeped aggressively at me which surprised me and made me wobble for an instant before shouting and gesticulating back. The car was then waiting to turn right behind another car, so I don’t get what the driver’s issue was.
If I had headphones on full blast, I wouldn’t have even known that some idiot moton was beeping at me.
hawkinspeter wrote:
Good work in at least reading the abstract – I was assuming it was at least a proper bit of research, rather than just an opinion poll, which is what it sounds like from your description.
Seems to me there’s a lot of piss-poor ‘research’ around, owing to the intense pressure on academics of all kinds to keep up their publication rate (on pain of losing their jobs). Not to mention more than a few journals which seem to be no better than vanity publishing.
Where can I get one of these
Where can I get one of these research jobs where I get paid for stating the bleeding obvious?!
Christopher TR1 wrote:
I guess you would be able to produce the evidence out your arse same as the people offering up the ‘evidence’ here so you’d be well suited to it.
This is in the same realms of ‘bleedin obvious’ like efficacy of helmets, hi-vis and the existance of tooth fairies and santa
Let’s face it you need all
Let’s face it you need all your senses on the road no matter what your mode might be. Plugging your ears has got to be the stupidest thing; you might as well put a blindfold on too.
alg wrote:
If you need all your senses ‘no latter what your mode might be’, how come cars are made to be almost soundproof?
Let’s face it, you’re a troll who won’t try and defend your easily-demolished comment.
alg wrote:
I don’t know about you, but I try not to use my sense of taste whilst cycling. A lot of vehicles are really dirty and I don’t think people would appreciate me licking their vehicle.
Hearing is a more complex topic though. I definitely use my hearing a lot when cycling and use it to judge what’s behind me or if a vehicle is changing speed. However, the question of whether it improves my safety is debatable as there’s little that I can do about dangerous situations approaching from behind. Hearing can clue me in on not pulling out in front of vehicles, but it’s safest to always look first.
hawkinspeter wrote:
I don’t know. One of my club buddies claimed we were having a ‘controlled’ effort up the cat and fiddle, jumped off my wheel the last 100 metres (whilst I was taking pictures) and nabbed a PR!
That left a bad taste!
alg wrote:
Yeah right on brother, the single most stupid thing you can do on a bike. Headphones. Yeah I’m with you. Headphones bad, the worst!
Oh, blindfolds you say. But I just destroyed all headphones. I feel silly now.
alg wrote:
as I’m deaf does this mean I might as well blind myself too?
People have enough trouble
People have enough trouble walking with their music…I passed a couple clowns where it was so loud I could hear it on the bike.. cyclists are no better , just arrogant about it
Why do people get so uppity
Why do people get so uppity about this issue?
Surely the point of this survey is saying if you have an auditory distraction you are less likely to have a good perception in the bike?
I’m no deaf people expert but they don’t have music constantly playing in their heads being a distraction.
why can’t people accept there is maybe evidence that it’s possible more dangerous to do something than they perceive to be the case?
whilst i’m sure someone with one eye can still reasonably safely ride a bike, I don’t think anyone would willing ride a bike with one eye closed… we’ll actually possibly some people on here would, just to make a point!!!
doc_davo wrote:
there may be evidence, but this survey doesn’t seem to be it.
People get uppity about it because it is yet another distraction from major issues that could significantly reduce the (already really quite low) risk to cyclists from motor vehicles, which are what really put people in danger.
they might also get uppity because the sort of half-baked conclusion that many people come to from this type of survey is that we should not cycle if we cannot hear probably, for whatever reason; that conclusion is not founded in any evidence that I know of, does not accord with my own experience, and goes against the principle that I am responsible for my own safety. I don’t need other people trying to stop me doing things “for my own good”.
doc_davo wrote:
No expert you say?!
doc_davo wrote:
Cyclists get uppity when all the known, effective strategies of improving cyclist safety are completely ignored and instead there seems to be a lot of focus on restricting cyclists’ freedom by mandating helmets or outlawing headphones.
I’ll accept the evidence if there is any, but this report was just based on people opinions rather than facts.
I reckon riding with one eye would be fine. Driving with only one eye is perfectly acceptable too. Depth perception is only really used within approx. 20 feet, so as long as you take extra care when close to other vehicles/objects, you should be fine.
Here’s the official line on monocular vision: https://www.gov.uk/monocular-vision-and-driving
doc_davo wrote:
If it is a matter of cutting out the auditory cues then why isn’t it an issue for the deaf? If someone with an impairment drives then the car is required to be adapted to compensate, there is nothing in this report regarding the adaptation of bikes (added mirrors?) that would be required.
If it is a matter of music (or whatever you listen to) being distracting then why isn’t it an issue for those in charge of motor vehicles?
Just watched the GCN show
Just watched the GCN show mentioning this ‘study’.
Interestingly:
They cite that it doesn’t affect younger people yet Matt Stephens rolls over this saying it doesn’t matter. In that case the other points raised don’t matter.
They then roll this into ‘especially with an increase in quieter electric cars’ – ban them then, or make them make a noise!
There’s then a clip of Matt riding in a cycle lane, less than 10 seconds. Blocked by 2 vans.
What chance have we got when ‘our own’ don’t see the idiocy!