- News
- Reviews
- Bikes
- Accessories
- Accessories - misc
- Computer mounts
- Bags
- Bar ends
- Bike bags & cases
- Bottle cages
- Bottles
- Cameras
- Car racks
- Child seats
- Computers
- Glasses
- GPS units
- Helmets
- Lights - front
- Lights - rear
- Lights - sets
- Locks
- Mirrors
- Mudguards
- Racks
- Pumps & CO2 inflators
- Puncture kits
- Reflectives
- Smart watches
- Stands and racks
- Trailers
- Clothing
- Components
- Bar tape & grips
- Bottom brackets
- Brake & gear cables
- Brake & STI levers
- Brake pads & spares
- Brakes
- Cassettes & freewheels
- Chains
- Chainsets & chainrings
- Derailleurs - front
- Derailleurs - rear
- Forks
- Gear levers & shifters
- Groupsets
- Handlebars & extensions
- Headsets
- Hubs
- Inner tubes
- Pedals
- Quick releases & skewers
- Saddles
- Seatposts
- Stems
- Wheels
- Tyres
- Health, fitness and nutrition
- Tools and workshop
- Miscellaneous
- Tubeless valves
- Buyers Guides
- Features
- Forum
- Recommends
- Podcast
news
Apple EarPods licensed CC BY-SA 3.0 by Juannibb on Wikimedia Commons.JPGChair of Cycling UK in Scotland examines whether it is safe to wear headphones while riding a bike
The chair of Cycling UK in Scotland says he sees nothing wrong with cyclists wearing headphones, after summarising the arguments for and against in a blog post for the British Journal of Sports Medicine.
Professor Chris Oliver of the Physical Activity for Health Research Centre at the University of Edinburgh and a consultant trauma orthopaedic hand surgeon at Edinburgh Royal Infirmary, said however that further research is needed before “strong conclusions” could be reached.
“Whilst banning wearing headphones whilst cycling may seem obvious for safety reasons, this behaviour restriction could be unfounded,” he wrote, noting that wearing headphones while riding a bike on the road or cycle paths is not currently illegal in the United Kingdom.
“One would think that listening to music may distract you from your surroundings. It may also prevent you from hearing other vehicles approach and thus jeopardise your own safety,” he continued.
He noted that “despite the common perspective that a greater ability to hear external sounds is safer and therefore better cycling practice, credible scientific evidence” on the issue “is very limited,”
Some people who ride with headphones do so with them only in one ear. A Dutch study that Professor Oliver cited, with 25 subjects, used auditory beeps to alert riders to a hazard while listening to music.
With headphones on both ears, only two thirds of riders (68 per cent) heard it, but with the headphone in just one ear, all subjects heard it.
Professor Oliver noted: “The researchers also found negative effects of high volume and fast tempo on auditory perception.
“The problem with this study is that no consideration was given to any visual warnings. Generally cyclists will use both visual and auditory information to stay safe.
“Stop signals are not auditory. There are red lights, white lines, and so on. All visual.
“Unfortunately there is really little evidence about how cycling with headphones affects concentration.”
In his post, he also addressed one issue often raised by cyclists who say riding with headphones should not be banned – that it is perfectly legal for hearing impaired and deaf people to ride a bike – and that motorists often listen to music through in-car stereo systems.
“Logically, if one was to argue that loss of concentration through listening to music or speech was in itself sufficient reason to prohibit cycling with headphones, one would also have to argue that car stereos would have to be banned,” he wrote, also raising the point that many pedestrians, too, listen to music on the move.
“Cycling and headphones causes much emotion and controversial debate, especially in the media,” he added, after highlighting a BBC poll in which nine respondents in ten agreed that cycling with headphones should be banned.
> Nine in ten people back headphone ban for cyclists, says BBC survey
Earlier this month, a coroner suggested that listening to music through her iPhone may have been a contributory factor in the death of cyclist Emily Norton, who sustained fatal injuries as she tried to avoid a lorry.
> Listening to music on iPhone may have led to cyclist’s death, says coroner
Professor Oliver concluded: “Victim blaming can be very upsetting in some accident situations. The facts of cycling accidents have to be absolutely established.
“Before anyone can come to any strong conclusions, we need further research to build up the evidence base on the use of headphones while cycling.”
The government has consistently rejected calls, including one in November 2013 from former Mayor of London Boris Johnson, for a headphone ban for cyclists.
> Government 'will not legislate' for Mayor of London's cyclist proposed headphone ban
Simon joined road.cc as news editor in 2009 and is now the site’s community editor, acting as a link between the team producing the content and our readers. A law and languages graduate, published translator and former retail analyst, he has reported on issues as diverse as cycling-related court cases, anti-doping investigations, the latest developments in the bike industry and the sport’s biggest races. Now back in London full-time after 15 years living in Oxford and Cambridge, he loves cycling along the Thames but misses having his former riding buddy, Elodie the miniature schnauzer, in the basket in front of him.
Latest Comments
- imajez 8 min 56 sec ago
Nothing new about zebra [or light controlled] crossing on roundabouts. Sheffield has had them for decades, possibly since the 1970s.
- David9694 1 hour 38 min ago
Herefordshire man fined after throwing parking ticket...
- OnYerBike 2 hours 59 min ago
I'm sure that sort of thing will come sooner or later. But presumably a key ingredient (and why you'd turn to a big brand like Fizik) is knowing...
- muhasib 3 hours 4 min ago
"the cost to rebuild the M25 junction 10/A3 Wisley interchange is £317 million. The project is expected to be completed in 2025. "
- mark1a 3 hours 28 min ago
I think they did, from memory back in the 70s/80s... haven't seen one for years though, our current milkman uses a standard van, albeit hybrid.
- kingleo 4 hours 42 min ago
I believe that straight forks that are used on carbon frames are more dangerous than the old steel forks because they are more rigid, the old steel...
- S.E. 5 hours 14 min ago
Yes, sleep apnea produces more CO... I'm not aware of any doping effect but what do I know....
- Gd29 7 hours 22 min ago
That's true enough. But doesn't address my point that the chainset you get as a replacement will not physically fit chainrings from the chain set...
- brooksby 7 hours 53 min ago
In all fairness, it almost certainly NEVER happened…
Add new comment
48 comments
Is it alright just to enjoy the ride, being outside, listening to the wind in the trees, birds and not augmented with "choons"?
A bit of background on Chris Oliver and his cycling story: https://vimeo.com/63158534
I have used in ear bud type phones whilst out riding (mainly MTB on canal towpath) with no loss of ability to hear the surrounding noise. When I started riding a road bike more frequently about 7 years ago I decided not to use them as I thought they reduced that ability.
Yesterday, whilst out cycling it began to get colder so mid ride I swapped out my usual cap with a winter weight/windproof one with ear covers (perforated).
I stopped after about 2km and swapped back to my regular cap.
The reason...
I was deafened by wind noise...probably worse due to the perforations at the ear flaps...and had no spatial awareness.
It was bloody terrifying. Much more so than any earphone/music issues I'd experienced in the past.
I won't be using that cap again.
As for head or earphones....I don't feel the need to rely on music for tempo or anything else...my mind and thoughts are enough of a distraction...and cycling is my unwind...
but I do realise that people that use them CAN do so responsibly and for some they cause no restriction/distraction...
now I guess the same could be said of drivers and high volume music within closed vehicles...except for those that can be heard/ felt from a 1/4 of a mile away....
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...
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. If it is not safe the cyclist(s) can take a more dominant line, indicate that it is not safe to overtake or prepare for evasive action if necessary.
Far too many cyclists view the courtesy toot as aggression, far too few drivers use it for fear of being seen as aggressive and then actually cause more danger by overtaking when maybe a cyclist is unaware of their presence at a less than ideal moment.
It's about communication between road users sharing a space. Which is why I am horrified at those who feel justified in drifting along in their own personalised la la land expecting everyone else to work around them. That goes for enclosed vehicle drivers with the stereo full on as well.
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.
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
except when another road user poses a danger."
Hysteria aside, riding with headphones at best is equally safe and at worst is going to make things less so, so I won't be doing it.
For a couple of years I rode with earphones, listening to music.
It had to be loud, to beat the wind noise
I had more close calls from vehicles behind while riding with ear phones than I ever have
I was more regularly surprised by the close approach of HGVs (which I hadn't heard) while wearing head phones.
In town, when I'm aware of a car approaching from behind, I look ahead at the parked traffic to find escape routes should the vehicle pass too close.
On the open road ( where I ride, in NZ) there is often no hard shoulder, so I am in the 'live traffic lane' and without headphones, due to wind noise a HGV can be only 1 sec (20 metres) behind before I hear it. I will, if I get enough warning, move as far left as possible (i.e. where it's not always practicable to ride all the time, on the 4-6" of tarmac to the left of the white line) to leave as much room between the vehicle and me. Also, it reduces the startle response of an HGV appearing (literally) at my elbow.
Personally on the open road I find earphones to be dangerous. In town there's enough going on I don't want the added distraction. But. like the helmet question, personally I think it's a case of each to their own. My experience is that wearing headphones reduces the safety margins in cycling.
The lack of published objective investigation in road crashes means this debate continues.
Consider 1) why when a truck or bus driver kills in a collision, with noise & commotion going on outside, they still manage to drive on - sometimes not even stopping, because they heard nothing.
Note here that many professional drivers cannot drive unless they have their driver's window partly open (to ensure they hear everything). As well as hearing other vehicles you hear your own, the tyre noise especially (or lack of it) tells you when they are rolling on ice.
Consider 2) the reports on cyclists fatally injured in collisions with trains & trams on level crossings - recorded on CCTV and in one case clearly witnessed by 2 pedestrians also about to use the crossing. All either had positive proof that they were oblivous to all sounds around them or evidence from their actions that they were unable to hear (and thus react to) the noise of a horn or other warning plus the substantial noise of a rail vehicle emergency brake application. I've noted this with pedestrians also - so engrossed in the music or conversation from their earpieces that they fail to respond to a polite 'coming past you' followed by a louder shout and then give abuse for being surprised.
At Little Mill, the pedestrians noted they could hear the music through the victim's raised hood, and the lack of response to a normal 'greeting' followed by the victim ignoring their shouts as he opened the gate and rode into the path of the train (horn sounding & brakes applied)
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.
I use earpods every time I ride to work. I never once realised it was the earpods that were making the car drivers pass dangerously. I can hear them coming from hundreds of metres behind me and I keep thinking they will wait and overtake safely... now I realise the reason why they don't; it's because of my earpods.
Should deaf people be allowed to ride bikes?
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.
Aside from an emergency vehicle's sirens what vehicle noise (assumed behind you) do you react to and how do you react?
not sure why need any specific research on cyclists and distraction - got pretty firm impression that the auto industry has it covered and that there are no problems with driving and operating audio whilst at the wheel...here's an offering from a company that is promoting reflective paint so cyclists can be seen better:
".....you can still interact both with applecarplay and your volvo simultaneously" (@37secs)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GUhcODePAdY
I wear in ear phones or ear plugs when I ride my motorcycle because they reduce wind noise without eliminating all noise. It's fully recommended and nobody harps on about it.
When I get to above 12 mph on my road bike all I hear is wind noise that drives me mad. It might be because my ears stick out a bit but still damn annoying. So for the last year I have been using in ear Bluetooth ear phones at low volume and they virtually eliminate the wind noise but still allow me to hear vehicle noise. They have been brilliant and have the added benefit of making my rides more enjoyable. I think you just need to be vigilant whenever and however you ride.
What do you do when you hear a vehicle behind you?
Ditto.
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.
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 not to listen to anything while I ride as I'm always listening out for vehicles behind me. Likewise, I CHOOSE to wear a helmet in case it offers me extra head protection should I take a spill. But these are informed CHOICES.
Why do so many (presumably) well meaning people want to tell us how to live our lives? 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. The intention may be well meant but the intrusion rubs people up and has the opposite effect. It's patronising and fruitless & yet many an intelligent person can't see this.
you really haven't read this properly, have you?
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.
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...
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.
Pages