Chair of Cycling UK in Scotland examines whether it is safe to wear headphones while riding a bike

The _Kaner wrote:

... I was deafened by wind noise...

If you turn your head sideways the wind noise will miraculously disappear. Most of the time I am constantly looking around, not just straight ahead, so wind noise isn't as big an issue as it might appear.

nbrus wrote:

The _Kaner wrote:

... I was deafened by wind noise...

If you turn your head sideways the wind noise will miraculously disappear. Most of the time I am constantly looking around, not just straight ahead, so wind noise isn't as big an issue as it might appear.

Yep, I did notice that, but would have to ride with my head continuously (90 degrees) sideways to prevent any intrusion from wind noise. And on the bog roads of the Irish Midlands, that's just not feasible...

Mungecrundle wrote:

Rule 112. A courtesy toot from a car approaching behind a cyclist, especially on a country road is an excellent example of how this HC rule can be applied to the benefit of both cyclist(s) and driver.

I don't understand why it's necessary. I ride on country lanes all year round and never need a 'courtesy' toot to be aware of a driver approaching from behind (and there are very few cyclists who wouldn't interpret it as 'I want to get past'). A driver should not need to use the horn in such circumstances and there are lots of other rules in the Highway Code they should be following in the first place.

If I drove up behind a cyclist unless they were weaving across the road like they were drunk I'd never think that the solution was to use the horn!

Also, a cyclist should not need to take a "more dominant" line, your road positioning should be chosen primarily for your own safety;  following road users have to put up with it and drive accordingly, just as they would behind any other slow moving vehicle.

The cyclists I know certainly don't ride along in la-la land, the roads feel too dangerous to relax and start daydreaming!

Discussing a ban on headphones while cycling is just another distraction and victim-blaming step to avoid discussing the real dangers on our roads.

Mungecrundle wrote:

Rule 112. A courtesy toot from a car approaching behind a cyclist, especially on a country road is an excellent example of how this HC rule can be applied to the benefit of both cyclist(s) and driver. The cyclist is alerted to the presence of the car, quite often it is difficult to hear engine noise over wind rush. The cyclist has a much clearer view of the road ahead. If safe the cyclist(s) can wave the car past keeping control of the situation. Both parties happy.

No it isn't. The rule is pretty clear that you use the horn when "you need" to warn other road users of your presence. There is no such thing as a "courtesy toot" and you dont need to warn the cyclist of your approach from behind unless you are driving badly. If they happen to be cycling badly then you must simply stay behind until it is safe to overtake.

Also the cyclist should not wave the car past and the driver (any driver) would be wrong to rely on the signal from the cyclist that it was safe to pass. The rules on overtaking are pretty clear that the responsibility to make sure it is safe to overtake lies entirely with the driver.

For reference again:

Rule 112

The horn. Use only while your vehicle is moving and you need to warn other road users of your presence. Never sound your horn aggressively. You MUST NOT use your horn 

• while stationary on the road
• when driving in a built-up area between the hours of 11.30 pm and 7.00 am

except when another road user poses a danger."

A V Lowe wrote:

Consider 3) the ignorance of many road users of the correct use of the audible warning of approach required by law on all motor vehicles, and how to react when the cyclist or pedestrian fails to respond to that sound. The rail industry, with its check-response-action culture to reduce danger when working in potentially hazardous places provides an answer.  A light 'toot' on the horn should elicit a corresponding response - on the railway it is almost instinctive to look at the source and raise your right arm to show you have noted the approaching train, have put aside your tools, and are moving to (or in) a safe place. On the road, no response to a toot, can indicate that the cyclist may be deaf, or not able to hear - and driving past them carries an added hazard of 'surprise' which needs to be allowed for.

There are 8 rules in the Highway Code about overtaking so I won't quote them here but in essence the driver must make sure there is room, that the overtaking manoeuvre is safe and then follow proper procedures before and throughout the overtake. Warning the person about to be overtaken is not among those actions and can't be described as "needed" (see rule below).

In fact you  should not be using "a toot" before "driving past" (overtaking) a cyclist (or other road user). The only rule on the use of a horn is pretty clear and I quote it below:

"Rule 112

The horn. Use only while your vehicle is moving and you need to warn other road users of your presence. Never sound your horn aggressively. You MUST NOT use your horn

while stationary on the road
when driving in a built-up area between the hours of 11.30 pm and 7.00 am

except when another road user poses a danger."

Please don't speak as  if you have specific expertise or knowledge without actually checking or knowing the current rules and guidance as it doesn't help clarify the situation.

Gourmet Shot wrote:

I use headphoines all the time and I can 100% say I am not the problem on the road 

Fair enough. 

I suppose you've heard the following factoid...

"When It Comes To Driving, Most People Think Their Skills are Above Average."

What this says is that people tend to overestimate their abilities. 

dannycarr2k wrote:

What do you do when you hear a vehicle behind you?

Ditto.

dannycarr2k wrote:

What do you do when you hear a vehicle behind you?

I hold my line, exactly as I do when I don't hear a vehicle behind me. Before I consider making a manouvres I check overy my shoulder, to ensure I don't move into the path of an electric car or another cyclist. I don't generally ride with headphones but I don't think it makes a difference. after all wearing headphones has less impact on hearing than driving a car with the windows closed and the stereo off.

herohirst wrote:

How I LOATHE stories like this.

If you muffle one of the senses you use to tell you what's going on around you while you ride, then you are increasing the risks you run. Do I need some officious Trump "investigating" this, simply to confirm what my common sense tells me is obvious? Of course not. Why is he/she wasting their time and (someone's) money?

Personally, I choose [...] Leave work like this to medical researchers and scientists (people doing demonstrably empirical work) then leave people to make their own decisions. Nobody likes a clever Dick on a High Horse. [...]

you really haven't read this properly, have you?

nbrus wrote:

...... The law cannot work with shades of grey, only with black and white .....

Mmm.  How about: The discretion of police officers about whether to investigate an offence.

                                        The discretion of police officers about forwarding papers to the CPS.

                                        The opinion of the CPS about whether to charge.

                                        The judges' powers to dismiss charges.

                                        The opinions of jurors about the verdict.

                                        The discretion allowed to judges/magistrates about sentencing.

                                        The possibility of appeals after sentencing.

There seems to be a reasonable amount of grey in our system.

mike the bike wrote:

nbrus wrote:

...... The law cannot work with shades of grey, only with black and white .....

 

Mmm.  How about: The discretion of police officers about whether to investigate an offence.

                                        The discretion of police officers about forwarding papers to the CPS.

                                        The opinion of the CPS about whether to charge.

                                        The judges' powers to dismiss charges.

                                        The opinions of jurors about the verdict.

                                        The discretion allowed to judges/magistrates about sentencing.

                                        The possibility of appeals after sentencing.

There seems to be a reasonable amount of grey in our system.

 

The law is black and white, but police officers and judges can excercise judgment in whether or not to apply it.  For example, if you are doing 37 mph in a 30 mph zone you are breaking the law, but a police officer might let you go with a warning if you were driving safely, had a clean driving license and were apologetic and pleasant to them. If the law was grey then justice could not be applied fairly. I am not saying the law is always clear, just that it attempts to be clear.

Deleted double post...

nbrus wrote:

Headphones/earphones are ok on the open road where you are less likely to be taken by surprise, but not in public areas when there is a greater risk from not having all your senses working ... same goes for car stereos. Use common sense and turn the volume down/off when appropriate. Unfortunately, the law can't work like this as who is to say what volume setting you are using, so a general ban is the only way this would work. The law cannot work with shades of grey, only with black and white, so if there are enough inconsiderate people causing a problem, then everyone will end up being forced to comply with new regulations as that is the only way it can work.

how do you know that it's ok on the open road, but not in so-called public areas? Until someone has done the science, which is what the Prof is suggesting, you're just speculating. Common sense is not objective, it is personal, and as likely to be wrong as right - that's why we have science, and numbers and so on.

Furthermore, a legal ban does not follow logically from any finding that wearing headphones is more dangerous to the wearer than not. A ban would be a political decision, not a scientific one, and would be faced with the same types of counter-argument as banning boxing, smoking, playing rugby, rock-climbing or sitting on the sofa cracking open a beer and eating another vindaloo, all of which are known, scientifically, to be dangerous activities.

ConcordeCX wrote:

nbrus wrote:

Headphones/earphones are ok on the open road where you are less likely to be taken by surprise, but not in public areas when there is a greater risk from not having all your senses working ... same goes for car stereos. Use common sense and turn the volume down/off when appropriate. Unfortunately, the law can't work like this as who is to say what volume setting you are using, so a general ban is the only way this would work. The law cannot work with shades of grey, only with black and white, so if there are enough inconsiderate people causing a problem, then everyone will end up being forced to comply with new regulations as that is the only way it can work.

how do you know that it's ok on the open road, but not in so-called public areas? Until someone has done the science, which is what the Prof is suggesting, you're just speculating. Common sense is not objective, it is personal, and as likely to be wrong as right - that's why we have science, and numbers and so on.

Furthermore, a legal ban does not follow logically from any finding that wearing headphones is more dangerous to the wearer than not. A ban would be a political decision, not a scientific one, and would be faced with the same types of counter-argument as banning boxing, smoking, playing rugby, rock-climbing or sitting on the sofa cracking open a beer and eating another vindaloo, all of which are known, scientifically, to be dangerous activities.

Actually, I don't think it's ok anywhere, I'm just trying to suggest a compromise to keep those that disagree with a ban happy ... I don't wear headphones nor play my car stereo when driving in town.  Also, I don't need a scientific study to tell me its more dangerous to be wearing headphones than not ... I've tried it myself and it definitely is, though it is difficult to quantify by how much. A scientific study might put some numbers on how much of a problem it actually is, which is what I believe you are referring to. If anyone says that there has never been a single instance where wearing headphones has contributed to an accident, then I would find that very difficult to believe.

nbrus wrote:

ConcordeCX wrote:

nbrus wrote:

Headphones/earphones are ok on the open road where you are less likely to be taken by surprise, but not in public areas when there is a greater risk from not having all your senses working ... same goes for car stereos. Use common sense and turn the volume down/off when appropriate. Unfortunately, the law can't work like this as who is to say what volume setting you are using, so a general ban is the only way this would work. The law cannot work with shades of grey, only with black and white, so if there are enough inconsiderate people causing a problem, then everyone will end up being forced to comply with new regulations as that is the only way it can work.

how do you know that it's ok on the open road, but not in so-called public areas? Until someone has done the science, which is what the Prof is suggesting, you're just speculating. Common sense is not objective, it is personal, and as likely to be wrong as right - that's why we have science, and numbers and so on.

Furthermore, a legal ban does not follow logically from any finding that wearing headphones is more dangerous to the wearer than not. A ban would be a political decision, not a scientific one, and would be faced with the same types of counter-argument as banning boxing, smoking, playing rugby, rock-climbing or sitting on the sofa cracking open a beer and eating another vindaloo, all of which are known, scientifically, to be dangerous activities.

Actually, I don't think it's ok anywhere, I'm just trying to suggest a compromise to keep those that disagree with a ban happy ... I don't wear headphones nor play my car stereo when driving in town.  Also, I don't need a scientific study to tell me its more dangerous to be wearing headphones than not ... I've tried it myself and it definitely is, though it is difficult to quantify by how much. A scientific study might put some numbers on how much of a problem it actually is, which is what I believe you are referring to. If anyone says that there has never been a single instance where wearing headphones has contributed to an accident, then I would find that very difficult to believe.

your personal experience is not enough to warrant banning anything. Any claim that wearing headphones has never contributed to an accident would require evidence, just as the opposite claim would. Something being difficult for you to believe is not enough either.

if we accept the idea of the harm principle (https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/mill-moral-political/#HarPri), which is pretty much the basis of liberal enlightenment values, then there can be no case whatsoever for preventing any well-informed rational adult from doing anything which harms only them self. The only justification for a ban would be based on the degree of harm that the activity does to others, against their will, relative to cyclists' freedom to listen to the Today programme while commuting. Note that this means actually does, based on evidence, not might do based on speculation.

That evidence would need to show a suitably large number of cases where cyclists' failure to hear something they would certainly otherwise have heard was the predominant cause of harm to others, rather than say the failure to look behind when changing lanes, or someone's careless driving.