Mayor of London Boris Johnson has said that he would support a ban on bike riders in London wearing earphones – leading one commentator to suggest that his credibility with cyclists “is evaporating.” In an interview with BBC Radio London’s Vanessa Feltz, Mr Johnson also appeared to downplay calls led by British Cycling’s Chris Boardman for London to ban lorries at peak hours.
The Mayor told Ms Feltz that Transport for London (TfL), which he chairs, regularly discusses the issue of cyclists and pedestrians using handheld electronic devices.
He described earphones used by people to listen to music while riding bikes as “and absolute scourge,” and said he would be in favour of banning them.

Boris Johnson paying close attention to the traffic
Mr Johnson continued: “Call me illiberal, but it makes me absolutely terrified to see them bowling along unable to hear the traffic.
"You've got to be able to hear that car behind you or about to come out of the road in front of you," he added.
It’s an issue Mr Johnson has addressed before.
In a 2011 reply at Mayor’s Question Time when the Green Party’s Jenny Jones quizzed him about pedestrian casualties in London, including children, he said: “I am afraid I see too many cyclists with iPods, earphones in both ears, which I think is wrong. I do not agree with that. I am worried.
“Speaking as one who cycles all over London, I see a lot of people using handhelds, using BlackBerry devices and not paying proper attention to the road.”
However, one photo circulated widely on Twitter and Facebook on Tuesday showed Mr Johnson himself using a handheld mobile phone while cycling.
In an article for the Guardian, Peter Walker, who regularly writes its Bike Blog, said: “What credibility Boris Johnson had with London's cyclists… is evaporating. Six cyclists have died on London's roads in just under two weeks. All but one were killed by lorries, coaches or buses. The mayor's reaction? To talk about headphones.”
What isn’t clear is whether Mr Johnson might be in possession of information suggesting that one or more of the six cyclists killed in London within the past fortnight may have been using headphones, and if so, whether police believe it may have been a contributory factor.
Meanwhile, British Cycling policy advisor Chris Boardman addressed an open letter to Mr Johnson on Tuesday in which he urged the Mayor to ban lorries from London’s roads at peak times.
In his letter, the former world and Olympic champion and wearer of the Tour de France yellow jersey says:
When I rode alongside you to help you launch your vision for cycling in March this year, you made a verbal promise to look at the successful experiences of Paris and many other cities in restricting the movements of heavy vehicles during peak hours.
Also, in the document, the Mayor’s Vision for Cycling in London (2013), you state: ‘In consultation with business, we will study the experience from cities such as Paris and Dublin, where lorries over a certain size are restricted from certain parts of the city or at certain times of the day.’
There have now been six cycling fatalities on the capital’s roads in two weeks and a total of 14 so far in 2013. HGVs were involved in nine of the fatal crashes – that’s 64% of the fatalities – despite making up less than 5% of traffic. In Paris last year [sic] there were zero cyclist fatalities.
British Cycling is disappointed that, eight months later, nothing has been announced on progressing this. Now is the time to make the tough and critical decisions necessary to achieve your vision – without that, more lives will be put at risk.
Paris is a safer place to ride a bike and we believe that this is, at least in part, due to the restrictions on dangerous vehicles entering the city during peak hours. London has an opportunity to emulate and surpass Paris and to lead the way for the other ambitious cycling cities across Britain. Let’s not waste this opportunity to do something now. The longer we delay, the more lives will be lost.
Improving HGV safety is a key aspect of our road safety manifesto. My colleagues at British Cycling are willing to help on this matter in whatever way they can. Do let us know if we can be of any assistance.
I would welcome an update on how this matter is progressing at City Hall.
During his interview with Ms Feltz, however, while acknowledging that there needed to be a "much bigger conversation about HGVs" and the risks they present to cyclists, Mr Johnson seemed to distance himself from a complete ban at certain times of the day.
He said that introducing such restrictions could lead to a "serious influx as soon as the ban is over," and thereby increase the danger for cyclists and other vulnerable road users travelling outside rush hour.
As for that statistic quoted by Boardman that no cyclists were killed in Paris “last year” – in fact, it relates to 2011 – it is an attention-grabbing one, regularly invoked to support calls for a restriction on movements on lorries similar to those in the French capital; however, it does need to be put into context.
For a start, the French statistics relate to the area covered by the Prefecture of Police of Paris, which covers 762 square kilometres; Greater London, for comparison, covers 1,572 square kilometres.
Secondly, even the Prefecture of Police of Paris points out that 2011 was unusual, with a spokesman quoted by the website 20minutes.fr earlier this year as saying “it was truly an exceptional year because since 2007 we generally see between two and six deaths [of cyclists] a year on the roads.”
In 2012, five cyclists lost their lives while riding their bikes in the area covered by the Prefecture, including Philippe Le Men, a cycling journalist with L’Equipe, killed by a lorry as he rode to work at the sports daily’s offices.
You can find more thoughts on that zero casualties in 2011 statistic in this blog post published in September last year by Buffalo Bill, who founded the Moving Target ezine.
One other startling statistic from Paris is that in 2012, there were 39 people killed in road traffic incidents in the city, 18 of them pedestrians; the same year, in that area of Greater London that is a little over twice the size, there were 134 road traffic fatalities, of whom 69 were pedestrians.





















74 thoughts on “Boris Johnson says he’d back ban on cyclists wearing earphones”
Headphones? Utter piffle.
The
Headphones? Utter piffle.
The HGV ban is a non-starter. Working where I do off Fenchurch St I’d say most of the lorries are construction lorries. Their journeys can’t be made in the evenings unless building work is to become a nocturnal activity. That’ll go down well. Even limiting them from rush hours would put a massive dent in the building operations.
Paris doesn’t have the same problem as it has a 7 storey limit on building height, so there’s no point in demolishing office blocks every 25 years and replacing them with a sparklier new model.
Well done Boris – deciding
Well done Boris – deciding policy based on anecdotal evidence and in the case of HGV’s, putting private profits before individual safety.
This is nothing to do with cyclist safety but obsequious pandering to the type of non-cyclists who desperately want to see cycling controlled in whatever fashion possible as they seek some sort of deluded moral equivalency. The same people who equate RLJ’s with dangerous driving.
Boris never had any credibility to me – his flagship cycling projects were more about column inches and corporate sponsorship than a genuine promotion of cycling. It’s clear that the cycling super highways aren’t fit for purpose and are often poorly thought out and implemented. He would rather be seen to be doing the right thing than actually do the right thing.
All of us who ride regularly can tell you what the problem is – unsafe driving. If you want these deaths to end then you need to tackle it head on. Instead Boris and the Met give us this victim blaming bullshit.
jasecd wrote:
All of us who
No more needs to be said really.
We don’t need:
* headphone bans
* flourescent clown clothes
* polystyrene faith-based headgear
* HGVs banned from the roads
We just need the police present stopping and arresting the habitual law-breakers that are killing themselves and the rest of us.
Ush wrote:jasecd wrote:
All
Yes.
And in the intervening twelfty hundred years, I shall continue to not wear ear/headphones, make myself visible, wear a helmet (agree this will not help me in the event of having to resist the weight of a large motorised vehicle, but it hurts less if I hit the road) and avoid putting myself in the way of other vehicles.
Jimbonic wrote:I shall
Good for you. Anything else about your private life that you’d like to share?
Ush wrote:Jimbonic wrote:I
Thank you.
What sort of details were you after?
So are we going to ban car
So are we going to ban car radios, voiced sat nav devices from cars and personal stereos from pedestrians on shared use bike paths. The same logic applies.
Initialised wrote:So are we
You should add near silent electric/hybrid cars to that list. Going by this logic Boris should also discriminate against deaf drivers, pedestrians and cyclists as well.
Initialised wrote:So are we
Exactly what I was wondering. To that you can add the fact that car drivers should have their radios off and all windows wound down, ban on hands free phones, all so that drivers can better hear what is around them? What a load of rubbish. The simply fact is that if you want to increase your survival odds as a cyclist, take as many precautions as possible including making yourself visible, not blocking out surrouding noises etc, but those can only go so far in an environment where the actual threat itself (motorised vehicles) is not being better managed, often is indifferent to cyclist safety and in some cases is blatantly agressive towards them (I am still staggered that the police would act if I walked down a road taking swipes at pedestrians with my baseball bat, yet seem not to be bothered by motorists doing the same with their cars to cyclists). I was fully aware of the presence of the car that hit me from behind whilst illegally over taking (though technically, as they didn’t cross the centre line, they didn’t overtake, they merely squeezed past me at 50mph), but that didn’t stop him hitting me and continuing to drive, perhaps not even realising he had swiped me numous times with his caravan (and no, I didn’t go to the police because I had nothing except the colour of the car to go on, so what’s the point? I was too busy trying not to go under his caravan or the following cars’ wheels to notice the reg no.). If Borris thinks this is the way to create safer streets, then he appears to have his priorities wrong, unless his priorities are based on ease of enforcement rather than life saving changes, in which case he is bang on the money.
double post
double post
Boris has evidently got what
Boris has evidently got what he wants from cyclists, so now we can piss off and die. Is anyone surprised? He is a Tory politician = a lying, opportunistic bastard who, in the end, will side with industry.
I am not a London cyclist, even a UK cyclist, but I was before the days of cycling super highways and insane London construction.
Good input from Mr Boardman,
Good input from Mr Boardman, shame about Paris stat being out but good reporting by road.cc, thanks for highlighting it
Surely the mechanism for
Surely the mechanism for appropriate HGV use already exists?
As they are all on commercial journeys there should already be a risk assessment of their trip, considering the time, route, equipment used and other mitigation that may be required to make that a safe journey.
Any serious incident and the HSE should be having a look at whether the RA was appropriate, if it was followed, and the various responsibilities within the companies – operator and client.
Some sense, some
Some sense, some balls.
Headphones have no place and no need. They do hinder awareness. To my mind they should be considered like lights. if you are wearing them and have an accident they have to be considered. As lights are compulsory during darkness. Its a law. I think that as with cars , cycle lights should be mandatory during poor conditions.
There is no reason not to. If cyclists want to be considered equal to cars then they should lay by the rules.
Talking about others, eg pedestrians, is just diverting attention from an issue that you personally don’t like. Its a different issue. I agree that it may be valid but its a different issue.
Good point about a rush once the HGV ban is over but maybe you city dwellers have to live with that.
Everyone just has to accept that lorries, cars and bikes are just not good bed fellows.
mattsccm wrote:Some sense,
All hail the motorist! zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz.
Wearing headphones whilst
Wearing headphones whilst cycling is simply retarded…I can’t see the kind of people that would wear them whilst riding wouldn’t take any notice of it being introduced to the highway code.
I agree that there are far
I agree that there are far too many cyclists (particularly kids) who wear headphones / earphones while cycling, and that it’s dangerous.
However I sometimes have one earphone in for satnav in a new area – why should that be illegal?
Also, regarding HGVs, all I have to say is Paris. No reason why they can ban HGVs in rush hour and we can’t.
Personally I agree with the
Personally I agree with the importance of having all senses fired up and unhindered. Like the drunk who gets plastered and then acts surprised when he finds himself in A&E we do need to do all we can to protect ourselves.
However, the main point is the roads should be safe enough to ride along without the thought even crossing your mind that the 2 tonne lump of metal box racing up behind you operated by a distracted and angry bee is about to shunt you from behind and possibly kill you.
Reality is hearing something like that rapidly approaching doesn’t always mean you can avoid it, and if you do have to dive out of the way the real issue remains of not whether you heard it or not but of why you’re having to dive out of its way in the first place? This is the point MPs persist in ignoring, instead finding it politically easier to brush the deaths aside.
It always returns to the simple matter of what people choose to do once they’re roaming about in their battle boxes and what government will do to force them to play nicely.
To date of course with the obscene history of victim blaming and excuses that government intervention and care really amounts to less than zero.
This government though do claim to be serious about cycling. Bit like sending a clown in a rubber dinghy to aid a typhoon stricken country and insisting you consider it to be a serious relief effort contribution.
Cameron…we see through you you know?
He’ll be asking “them” to pay
He’ll be asking “them” to pay road tax next.
Whilst wearing headphones does seem a little silly to me, is there ANY evidence whatsoever thats its a serious contributor to the KSI’s we’ve had??
I think he’s realised he can no longer win over the cyclists, and instead is simply appealing to the anti-cyclist voters instead.
Assigning blame to cyclist
Assigning blame to cyclist again, kicking the victim when they are down is a low act of Boris, he should do something rather then brainstorming shitty idea’s that can’t be controlled. Bringing down the speed of cars and trucks in town, enforce bike lights for visibility, these are the only two things that can be done short term.
First of all, is there any
First of all, is there any evidence of accidents as a result of cyclists wearing headphones? I certainly don’t see how it would be problematic if I was riding to work in the coming weeks with Test Match Special playing into one ear, while someone in a car on the same road could have 1000 watts pumping out into their little metal box.
The last couple of weeks seem to have resulted in all sorts of ideas being floated around. Most seem to be aimed at the victims of these accidents, rather than ways of making it safer for them. For example, on LBC this morning they were apparently talking about whether it should be made compulsory for cyclists to wear HiViz. If someone cannot see another individual in broad daylight (cyclist or pedestrian) they shouldn’t be on the road. As for nighttime, HiViz is a waste of time and a black outfit with plenty of reflective material would be far more visible.
If there is clear cut statistical evidence to back any ideas I would 100% back it, but most of the ideas being banded around have no scientific basis. For example, the majority of the recent deaths seem to have resulted from the poor cyclists being crushed by buses or lorries. Having a helmet isn’t going to save you from being crushed to death. In fact, for any of the recent deaths where no helmet was worn was the lack of a helmet a contributory factor in the death?
Victim blaming again.
Does
Victim blaming again.
Does Boris have an opinion on the call by Charity Brake for a ban on Hands Free mobiles in vehicles?
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-24982173
This is something that would actually improve road safety. Bans on headphones won’t.
That’s it, Boris. Go for a
That’s it, Boris. Go for a non-issue instead of the real problems. Idiot.
Unless you’re the sort of numpty who weaves around the road and switches lanes without using YOUR EYES, there is no problem *whatsoever* with listening to music. The only thing they could possibly make a difference to is if a) someone is about to drive straight into you from behind and b) you are some uber-skilled bike ninja who could immediately levitate above said vehicle were you to hear it.
I commute with one earphone
I commute with one earphone in and my anecdotal evidence would be that I still manage to pay more attention than most to the world around me.
Doubtless wearing earphones (plural or singular) should be considered in the event of an accident, but if that’s the case, then so should the car driver’s choice of listening material, whether the SatNav was on and how many children were in the car.
Operation of any road going machine, motorised or not, 2 wheels or more, needs your full attention and has numerous things that might impinge on that; some within your control, many more that aren’t.
I’m going to continue to use a single earpiece to listen to Radio 4 while I ride, if you don’t like that, well, chacun a son gout, as they say in the safer streets of Paris.
Your ears are your ‘third
Your ears are your ‘third eye’ on a bike. They’ve saved me a number of times. Removing that ‘sense’ and replacing it with something that is potentially disctracting (ie music, radio); that’s just crazy! Mark Cavendish was asked in an interview whether he’d wear headphones and he replied, emphatically, never. Helmets, high-viz and reflectives can be debated ’till the cows come home’, but wearing headphones is in with using lights. I wouldn’t wear headphones to walk or jog round streets for the same reasons.
“I see a lot of people using
“I see a lot of people using handhelds, using BlackBerry devices and not paying proper attention to the road.”
I assume he’s talking about all traffic here – I see more drivers plugged into Iphone-earphone music that cyclists (outside London that is). A rising issue, as more music is held on mp3 players and older cars don’t have line-ins.
And don’t assume that I can’t hear traffic when using my mp3 while riding – how does anyone know what volume it’s at? At normal levels (for me) I can hear more background noise than when in a car with the windows up and the radio on and enough to feel as aware as I need to be. There’s a time and place for it though and it’s just an area for common sense and perspective.
Ban all drivers from inner
Ban all drivers from inner London who have mobile phone convictions, now we’re talking!
antonio wrote:Ban all drivers
Now there’s an idea that makes me smile. Automatic temporary driving ban for that and whole host of other driving offenses. There’s too much traffic on the roads anyway.
Driving is a privilege not a right.
Im kind of lost for words,
Im kind of lost for words, and I really don’t mean to offend, but I have not heard so much rubbish in such a short article in so long. Headphones may be an issue but there is no evidence yet, but what about the hearing impaired, shall we assume they are no longer allowed on a bike?
Further more, you can light up a cyclist like a xmas tree, have them followed by helicopters with spot lights for all I care, the fact of the matter is the cyclist that has been hit was not seen, I dont believe for one moment that an of the recent deaths were deliberate. Drivers are looking ahead, not to the side, and once they have passed a cyclist they are no longer a concern, even on the dullest day you cant tell me that cant see a cyclist on the road in front of a vehicle, the problem may well just be that drivers are not looking for them, or in the case of the left turn incidents, once they are out of direct vision, no longer a concern?
I remember when I did my HGV licence many many years ago, we were taught to always look in the mirrors when taking a corner….they used to say “one eye looking back, one eye looking forward” this wasn’t for cycle safety, but to make sure the corner was cleared and the HGV didn’t mount a curb, but it would serve the same purpose.
As I have said many times before, there are asshole drivers and asshole cyclists out there, but they are the minority, drivers need to be more aware of us squishy people on the road, and we need to make sure that we make ourself safe, only this morning on the way to work a guy on a bike crossed in front of me without looking, but assumed that putting his hand out as he cut in front was going to save him from being squished…basic road safety just does not exist here….from both parties….I have lost count of the times someone has just cut in front of me with out indicating, or even when indicating, not looking and assuming that because they have indicated, they have the right of way
Rant over, im starting to get really angry, the solutions are simple, as are the people that have to power to solve the problem
jason.timothy.jones
What about the poor chap who got rear-ended after a driver was supposedly gawping at her satnav for 18 seconds?
Not that I would wear
Not that I would wear headphones on the bike – but surely the point is that cycling should be safe enough for people to use them if they want to?
Look at Holland, how removing road furniture, street markings and signs and repaving entire streets has created an equal space for pedestrians cyclists and motor vehicles
Its the Mayor’s job to deliver a safe environment rather than just legislating cyclists into adapting to a dangerous one. Doing that solves nothing in the long term and perpetuates the status quo.
tbh he’s right! I’d never
tbh he’s right! I’d never cycle with headphones in as you just can’t be fully aware of your surroundings like that
Excellent, well-balanced
Excellent, well-balanced reporting Simon.
I sometimes wear in-ear headphones when cycling. With the radio on quietly, listening to TMS for example, it’s no problem at all to be fully aware of your surroundings. Vehicular traffic is actually really noisy __ much, much louder than the level I have my headphones at.
The wind blowing across your ears is also incredibly noisy too. I only became aware of just how utterly deafening a crosswind is by wearing headphones because it drowns them out entirely.
If we are going to ban headphones then we also need to ban cycling in conditions in which cyclists could be affected by crosswinds too. They affect your ability to hear what’s around you much more.
I know Boris isn’t making much sense on this issue (so far) but overall I can’t think of anyone in recent history who has done more to promote cycling generally and especially cycling in London. He cycles himself (properly too, without the ministerial Jag behind him), introduced the ‘Boris bike’ scheme and is genuinely investing significant amounts in cycling infrastructure. Unfortunately we are having to come from 40 years behind that of other European countries and also overcome a largely hostile public attitude.
Joeinpoole wrote:
I know
Nope, it was all started before he sadly became “mayor”, you should be thanking Ken Livingstone.
Bollocks to this. I wear
Bollocks to this. I wear open-backed headphones so I can still hear road noise, but I really think it’s a non-issue anyway, even if they completely blocked out the sound. If someone doesn’t look properly and runs you over, the chances that you will be able to leap out the way with some noise-induced spider-sense are miniscule. (Unless you are actually Spiderman, in which case thanks for your crime-fighting work, and good luck in court trying to get access to your kids).
I think more of an issue is that most cars I see (especially private hire) have at least two screens on the dashboard (usually sat-nav plus a phone in a holder on the windscreen) to distract them. WTF is going on with that?
EU headphone volume limit =
EU headphone volume limit = 85dB. HGV or bus at 10ft = 90dB. Busy street noise is usually between 70 and 80dB and remains pretty much constant.
Roughly, decibel level drops 6dB with doubling of distance. So a bus 40ft away is possibly inaudible above street noise and at 20ft only marginally louder than the surrounding noise.
And being able to hear a vehicle emerging from a side street or approaching behind you? Sound travels in relatively straight lines, so the noise of the vehicle is reflected off objects either side and is projected according to the angle and distance of reflection. So basically into the space opposite the exit and then back off that at lower levels to a wider arc. That’s assuming regular, single source sound and constant reflective surfaces. Good luck finding that in a streetscape while in motion.
So if you switch on the EU limiter and knock it down a couple of notches on generic iPod headphone, you should be able to hear vehicles at 40ft. Oh did I mention Honda say that their 2013 Accord is so well soundproofed that it reduces ambient noise down to 50-odd dB. So basically, you’ve got naff all chance of hearing that car emerging at speed from a sidestreet. But you can’t avoid addressing politic points with vehicular soundproofing now can you?
You’d save more lives banning
You’d save more lives banning motorists from wearing ear plugs because they’re nattering on the phone and not paying proper attention to the roads.
Ban all phone conversations whilst vehicle is not parked.
I just went off to check news
I just went off to check news reports from about a month ago to ensure that I actually understood which authorities in London had been asked by a Coroners Court to formally respond on concerns about cyclists deaths and a quick read of the opening page of the Coroners Report
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/shared/bsp/hi/pdfs/22_10_13_cycling.pdf
shows that it was addressed to Boris Johnson – if this is part of his response then he should be ashamed – it is a deliberate distraction from the real issues – yes cyclists need to concentrate 110% but why? because other road users in steel boxes don’t concentrate or don’t care – so if I’m riding my bike and I can hear a vehicle behind what am I expected to do to make the situation safer? Pull in to left, doff my helmet and pull at the lapel of my hi viz?
I’m sure others will say it but my experience of riding mostly (but not always) without headphones is that I rarely hear vehicles approaching fast from behind that then pass too close – I can hear aggressive drivers in slower moving traffic when I claim the lane or the road is simply too narrow for them to pass safely but the problem isn’t me and I can’t instantly redesign the road layout or reset some ones alarm clock to 5 minutes earlier
utter rubbish.
Whatever the rights and
Whatever the rights and wrongs of headphone use (I don’t as I want to hear what’s going on around me and my earphones are a snug fit that ) the timing of this outburst is appalling and smacks of shameless deflection.
It reminds me of the classic “blame the referee” tactic employed by football managers to deflect criticism of their team.
In this case Johnson appears to be trying to avoid any serious discussion about the real issues by throwing this particular stone into the pond.
I’m a driver, a motorbike
I’m a driver, a motorbike rider and a cyclist. When I ride the motorbike, I have to wear noise-attenuating earplugs for the safety of my hearing, despite being inside a big and muffling helmet – all motorcyclists do (actually, quite a few wear ear-bud-type earphones or use in-helmet speakers to pass music and satnav instructions). Are motorcyclists going to be similarly banned?
As it happens, I ride my (pedal-powered) bicycle without anything in my ears and have learnt to use my hearing to build a picture of what’s going on around me – that is used in lieu of looking, occasionally. When on the motorbike, I simply replace the lost sense (hearing) with extra visual checks. Why is this not viable for cyclists when it is for motorcyclists?
“For a start, the French
“For a start, the French statistics relate to the area covered by the Prefecture of Police of Paris, which covers 762 square kilometres; Greater London, for comparison, covers 1,572 square kilometres.”
Sorry Simon, that’s way too simplistic a comparison – I can’t comment on Paris, but the outlying suburbs of Greater London don’t magically disappear into nothingness, just more of the same. “Greater London” is purely an arbitrary identification of area.
Far more relevant to the argument is how the fatalities in London are distributed – it’s already known that one black spot is Bow roundabout, and there’s another area somewhere in C London (I forget where) where fatalities are predominantly women cyclists.
JonD wrote:”For a start, the
“Greater London” isn’t at all arbitrary; it’s a precisely defined area, made up of the 32 London boroughs. If you live within it, Boris Johnson is your mayor, you will have a London Assembly member representing you, if you live outside it, you don’t. It’s policed by the Met, not Kent or Essex constabularies, or whatever. And it’s entirely relevant here because TfL’s road casualty stats cover Greater London – no more, no less.
It may be a “simplistic” comparison as you say, but it’s a valid one, as is pointing out that the zero deaths Paris stat is an anomaly, confirmed by police in Paris – but it’s one of those stats that is now becoming set in stone, Boardman’s letter mistakenly gives it as “last year” ie 2012, BBC reported that as fact.
You make a good point about Bow, which we’ve covered in depth, likewise the area with a high incidence of female cyclists being killed (roughly speaking, an area centred on Bloomsbury).
Simon_MacMichael
I’ll try to clarify.
The point you were making was that the Paris figures are over a smaller area than those for G.London (and your caveat was, by implication, perhaps the figures aren’t that different when comparing for non-zero death years in Paris). Ok, that may be an indicator of some sort, but it doesn’t actually tell you very much apart from some sort of baseline figure, which is why I said it’s too simplistic to be very useful – I’m not having a go at you 😉
I’m well aware of the *definition* of Greater London – I’ve lived there for most of the last 25 years (and last time I had the chance I voted for Livingstone !) – that isn’t the issue. I said it’s an arbitrary selection of region because it’s merely selected on the basis of the figures that are available, rather than applying criteria that might make a more meaningful comparison. If the figures included the suburbs out to the M25, that’d be equally arbitrary – do you see what I’m getting at ?
More telling would be deaths per unit area, or regioning over where the majority or deaths occur, and see how they compare between cities. I have the distinct impression from reading road.cc etc over the last few years that if you mapped death distribution by area, then the vast majority would be within a relatively small area in central London, with some clustering within that.
So everyone who thinks
So everyone who thinks wearing headphones whilst cycling is retarded/stupid/dangerous/etc/ad nauseum, must despair when you find out a cyclist is deaf?
How can they possibly be aware of their surroundings if they cannot hear?
Pointless discussion that Johnson has done his classic misdirection trick on you all, and like mugs, you fell for it.
As for awareness whilst travelling, check out this study carried out by the Bicycle Network of Australia
zanf wrote:So everyone who
Banning headphones sounds
Banning headphones sounds logical, but as some people have pointed out, could you have a handsfree kit or just one headphone in for a phone call/navigation/similar?
But to take that one step further, why not ban all cars from having music and radio – they often can’t hear things like horns, people shouting for attention, emergency sirens.
It’s easy to see that headphones are dangerous, but what about pedestrians and drivers using them or listening to music?
Lorries are clearly the biggest issue, as most of the recent news stories have highlighted. But the best way to make London safe to cycle in is to start from scratch and redesign all the roads to have proper cycle lanes – no half measures.
Making the wild (and
Making the wild (and incorrect) assumption that all of the recent fatalities were wearing headphones, and wearing them at a level that covered all other external noise; what would removing the headphones have done to avert these tragedies?
If they were killed by a large vehicle approaching from the rear, they would surely have had to stop and dismount as I assume, again, that headphones weren’t causing them to weave erratically around the road.
If they were killed by a large vehicle they had caught and either sat beside or had passed, then they should have noted the vehicles presence and would be aware that it would most likely be approaching from the rear in the near future.
I don’t use headphones while cycling as I like to know when vehicles are about to pass me, but I don’t change my cycling if I hear something approaching. The greater concern is that drivers are not seeing cyclists because they are not looking at the road ahead in enough detail. In addition, there appears the be no criminality or significant social stigma attached to driving offences so people don’t care enough to avoid them. Driving offences have become more of an inconvenience than anything else.
Have a listen to the actual
Have a listen to the actual discussion
http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/p01kkx9j
The discussion regards headphones is brought up by a caller, starting about 30 minutes into the show – Boris says they’re a problem, but also mentions pedestrians wearing headphones as well.
He argues against helmet compulsion, says that cyclists having a right to be on the road and to take road space, puts Vanessa Feltz to rights and the discussion is very pro cycling and he discusses many of the challenges.
The response from some on here is typical knee-jerk based on what’s been reported (twisting what was actually said and taking it all out of context) which simply doesn’t stack up when you listen to what he actually said!
I’m all for giving Boris stick when he comes out with his usual gaffes but on this one show, he was actually pretty reasonable.
Like all those people complaining about that prank call by Russell Brand – about 90% of them hadn’t even heard the radio show, just jumped on the “I’m outraged!” bandwagon!
Boris is a tw*t, a lovable
Boris is a tw*t, a lovable tw*at, but none the less, a tw*t.
using headphones whilst cycling can’t be sensible, I guess it depends to a degree the level of music and type of earphone. I admit I used to do it in my youth and never had an issue but its not something I do now.
How on earth do you enforce it? I never see mobile phone car users getting pulled over.
Does music have to be on or does the earphone just have to be in your ear, big difference and how do you prove it?
Why not ban in cars smoking, fiddling with sat nav/stereo/listening to the foo fighthers…….all distract you and would probably reduce incidents.
Simmo72 wrote:Boris is a
Nope.
Like many on here I don’t
Like many on here I don’t wear ear/headphones, because they are distracting and affect my ability to hear traffic. As adamthekiwi said, you build a mental picture from the available sound. I have been so distracted by music as to hit a kerb before. I was aware that there was a car behind and that it was too close. But, couldn’t gauge it’s position and closing speed without frequent glances over my shoulder. As a result, I don’t wear them any more.
I don’t think a ban would be the right approach; mainly because it would be unenforceable (or at least unenforced).
The argument that “car drivers have music so why can’t I” is a bit of a fatuous one. It’s all about personal safety. You have a duty of care for the safety of you and everyone around you. The same goes for the car driver. But, it is separate argument. Some of the reasoning is the same and it might be a very good idea, but stopping a car driver from listening to music doesn’t increase your duty of care.
On the subject of HiViz, it is personal choice, of course, whether you want to increase your chances of being seen or not. I prefer to increase them. At night a HiViz item without reflective material will not increase your visibility. But, it will do during the day. There is a reason that construction workers are required to wear them on most work sites.
Just a bit of an aside on visibility and how you are seen by drivers, you might be interested in this:
http://www.londoncyclist.co.uk/raf-pilot-teach-cyclists/
@jimbonic: I think you’ve
@jimbonic: I think you’ve misinterpreted what I said. Yes, an aural landscape is a useful addition to your sensory package, but it is easy to replace it with more visual checking, as all motorcyclists do all the time.
Of course, if music interferes with *your* ability to cycle such that it can cause a collision, *you* should seriously consider never wearing earphones while cycling. Everyone else should be able to make that choice for themselves.
adamthekiwi wrote:@jimbonic:
I agree. Everyone should be able to make that choice. I have. Thanks for the concern.
As a cyclist or motorcyclist, or any other road user for that matter, you should be making visual checks behind. What I am saying is that, when you are aware of close traffic, overly frequent checks behind distract you from looking forward. That’s the same for everyone. And everyone will be at a disadvantage if they’re listening to something on their ear/headphones.
The cyclist / motorcyclist comparison is slightly skewed, in that on a motorcycle, you are likely to be travelling somewhat faster and, as such, your relative speed to other, heavier road users is far lower. You’re unlikely to be overtaken by an HGV close enough to be able to count the dirt particles. Also, as you say, wind roar on a motorcycle interferes with your ability to hear other traffic anyway. Wind roar on a bicycle is quite a lot lower, but not non-existent.
As you say, it’s up to you.
adamthekiwi wrote:Of course,
I commend you on your immense cycling raw talent I’m sure one of the teams will snap you up in a jiffy what with you being able to both ride and listen to music at the same time.
**not so brilliant when you’ve got an ambulance in the distance approaching from the rear are they bright spark.
Obvious statement. Yes
Obvious statement. Yes earphones are going to impede your awareness however you only need to be fully aware when you are riding on a road! when your on a trail in the middle of nowhere then it doesnt matter. As for a response, this is a stupid statement! I can only assume that he meant to also point out that a couple of the cyclists were listening to headphones. However he hasnt and now just looks a Boris… I mean fool
‘It’s easy to see that
‘It’s easy to see that headphones are dangerous’
It is? go on, then, humour me. Explain why.
Aside from the debate about
Aside from the debate about the actual impact of wearing headphones whist riding what really disturbs me about this story is that the discussion is about banning cyclists from using headphone *in London*. When did we start making road rules on a local, city-by-city basis?
This touches on a theme which is a big issue for cyclists as road design, cycle infrastructure and attitude to things like pavement cycling seem to vary considerably in different areas. I’d like to see some more joined up thinking on these issues rather than making up new rules that only apply in limited geographical areas.
Matt eaton wrote:When did we
I believe ‘parking on the pavement’ is only banned in London and one other city (Bath?). Of course its never enforced, so its a bit pointless anyway.
I guess it’s just because he
I guess it’s just because he is Mayor of London and doesn’t have a remit for the rest of the country. I’m sure when he is made national cycling czar, he’ll roll it out across our whole great nation….
Fair enough as long as they
Fair enough as long as they also ban car stereos.
If I’m spared the boom-boom-boom megabass from passing cars (that I hear in my own living room!) and if it, as a side-effect destroys Nick Ferrari’s listening figures, (LBC is pretty much a station for taxi-drivers and white van men, no?) then it will be worth it!
But if the ban is exclusive to cyclists, then forget it!
Quote:forget it!
Period.
It
Period.
It is truly amazing the amount of rubbish people can be get brainwashed by, you support deaf people being banned from cycling I suppose?
The correct way to listen to
The correct way to listen to music whilst cycling is, of course, to tow a massive f*** off boom box on a trailer behinds one’s bicycle, and share one’s taste in punk, ska, or reggae* with one’s fellow road users. Thus demonstrating that cyclists can also get to 11.
* other forms of music are rumoured to be available.
Argos74 wrote:The correct way
Overkill, you can mount an MP3 player on the stem with speakers, amp and batteries in a box on top of the rack. I never listen to headphones anymore because they broke and I realized that I liked riding without them, but on the noise bike only metal is played.
They can prise my headphones
They can prise my headphones with the Archers podcast on, out of my cold dead ears.
Seriously if you want to listen to really loud music so your oblivious to any aural warnings you can. In the same way you can choose to close one eye or even both, if your feeling especially daring.
As many have pointed out headphones, and what you listen to, and how loud are personal choices we should all be able to make. Some will hate to lose out on hearing things around them, others won’t mind at all, others will be happy with a mix and choose headphones and material to allow it.
To be fair with my helmet on I can’t hear much due to wind buffeting at anything over 12 mph or there abouts.
They can prise my headphones
They can prise my headphones with the Archers podcast on, out of my cold dead ears.
Seriously if you want to listen to really loud music so your oblivious to any aural warnings you can. In the same way you can choose to close one eye or even both, if your feeling especially daring.
As many have pointed out headphones, and what you listen to, and how loud are personal choices we should all be able to make. Some will hate to lose out on hearing things around them, others won’t mind at all, others will be happy with a mix and choose headphones and material to allow it.
To be fair with my helmet on I can’t hear much due to wind buffeting at anything over 12 mph or there abouts.
I listen to music, don’t wear
I listen to music, don’t wear a helmet, and ride no-handed when possible. (Clearly long overdue for a Darwin Award.) Naturally I hope Boris keeps his hands off my earphones. Cycling is about freedom.
Ban cyclists wearing
Ban cyclists wearing headphones but not enforce a requirement to wear a helmet?
Reeaally?
Not that I’m necessarily a fan of either, but wearing headphones or not won’t stop the car behind you or coming out a side street ploughing into you regardless of whether you’ve heard it or not. A helmet, on the other hand, might just save your bonce as you go through the windscreen.
Can someone please call Boris
Can someone please call Boris to warn him that the Met police are stopping cyclists for not wearing hi-viz and helmets…
“The correct way to listen to
“The correct way to listen to music whilst cycling is, of course, to tow a massive f*** off boom box on a trailer behinds one’s bicycle, and share one’s taste in punk, ska, or reggae* with one’s fellow road users.”
“They can prise my headphones with the Archers podcast on, out of my cold dead ears.”
I so hope no-one ever combines these two ideas!
Its bad enough having to race to the radio to turn it off when _that_ theme tune starts. Never mind being blasted with it in the street as the R4 posse cruise past.
I don’t think wearing
I don’t think wearing headphones makes too much difference to where you place yourself on the road. It’s how you ride that matters.
Eye contact, more eye contact, signal, manoeuvre (and finish with a thank you if needed).
Perhaps not where you place
Perhaps not where you place yourself. But, how you react to the presence of other road users, yes.
But, you are correct; you should always signal your intentions and be polite.
(Unless you’ve just been given a left hook, of course…)
By the way the photo claimed
By the way the photo claimed to show Boris riding while talking on the phone is quite inconclusive. He is holding his left brake on and his right leg is up and left leg is down, exactly how you would be if you were stopped by the kerb.
I must have a word with God
I must have a word with God to make sure the wind doesn’t blow next time I’m out on the bike so I can hear the traffic more clearly.
Judging from the comments
Judging from the comments above, Boris _has_ successfully deflected concern at his inaction on cycle fatalities to a discussion about headphones.