- 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
- Buyers Guides
- Features
- Forum
- Recommends
- Podcast
Boris Johnson on CS2 extension Nov 2013 (source MayorofLondon on Twitter)Boris Johnson says he'd back ban on cyclists wearing earphones
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.
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
- Hirsute 59 min 49 sec ago
Radar tells me their closing speed, if they are slowing and how far away. Then I decide to say a prayer. The change of light pattern is incidental.
- lonpfrb 1 hour 19 min ago
Quite so, which is why our village 20mph zone covers the whole residential extent. Of course, enforcement is another thing..
- lonpfrb 1 hour 45 min ago
No, that's very doubtful while proper testing would be fully destructive.
- TheBillder 2 hours 32 min ago
In that £1000 exactly scenario, beginners should probably be made aware that pedals will be extra.
- don simon fbpe 3 hours 1 sec ago
What's wrong with dropping down on to the Millenium Bridge, or the swing bridge, then the brief, but satisfying climb back up the hill? #training....
- chrisonabike 3 hours 40 min ago
The relatives might of course disagree, but in general I'd countenance a relatively light sentence* if only we could fix it so that those who...
- ktache 4 hours 20 min ago
Id forgotten that I got a second hand set of project two's for my getting to work bike over twenty years back.
- Veganpotter 5 hours 17 min ago
My bet is that all these tires popping off are from people with bad pressure gauges or they're simply just putting too much air in on purpose. ...
- chrisonabike 6 hours 32 min ago
David9694 - you were right! These new autonomous vehicles really are conspiring to run out of control!...
Add new comment
74 comments
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 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 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?
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.
"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.
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
What about the poor chap who got rear-ended after a driver was supposedly gawping at her satnav for 18 seconds?
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 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 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!
Nope, it was all started before he sadly became "mayor", you should be thanking Ken Livingstone.
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.
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/
Nope.
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
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.
'It's easy to see that headphones are dangerous'
It is? go on, then, humour me. Explain why.
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.
Good for you. Anything else about your private life that you'd like to share?
Thank you.
What sort of details were you after?
@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.
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.
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.
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 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!
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.
"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).
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?
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.
Pages