Transport for London (TfL) is reported to have approached an institution in London to conduct research regarding the effect of wearing headphones on the safety of cyclists. Earlier this week, the city’s Mayor, Boris Johnson, said banning headphones was one option being considered following the death of six cyclists in the city.
The Independent quotes an unnamed source as saying: "I know for a fact that a research institution has been approached by TFL to ascertain if wearing headphones has an impact on cyclists' reaction times.
“They need this research because they don't know if it does, there is just some indicative evidence."
The newspaper says that TfL declined to confirm whether it had made such an approach.
On Tuesday, in an interview with BBC Radio London’s Vanessa Feltz regarding those recent fatalities and cycle safety in general, Mr Johnson said: "I'm very alarmed about cyclists wearing headphones. I would not be against a prohibition or ban on cyclists wearing headphones.
“Call me illiberal but it makes me absolutely terrified to see them bowling along unable to hear the traffic."
Mr Johnson’s remarks saw him come under heavy criticism from cycling campaigners, who said he should be focusing instead on issues such as infrastructure including junction design, as well as a potential rush-hour ban on lorries, involved in a disproportionate number of cyclist fatalities in London, including three this month.
It is a topic he had previously discussed in a Mayor’s Question Time exchange with the Green Party’s Jenny Jones in 2011, when she asked him about pedestrian casualties in London.
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.”
In the wake of Mr Johnson's comments this week, Mike Cavenett of the London Cycling Campaign told the BBC: "I'd like to know what kind of evidence base the mayor is using. I'm not aware of a single fatality where headphones were implicated."
It is an issue that divides cyclists, as can be seen in the comments to our story on Tuesday about Mr Johnson’s remarks.
The Independent says that there is no evidence that bans on wearing headphones in Quebec or Florida has reduced the number of cyclists killed there.
But it says that research published in 2011 in the journal Transportation Research by academics from the University of Groningen found that "listening to music resulted in reduced visual and auditory perception and reduced speed" and may also reduce the rider’s stability.
The study concluded: "Negative effects are very large when in-earbuds are used. Negative effects of high volume and fast tempo on auditory perception were found.”
However, it added: “No negative effects were found when listening to music using only one earbud."
It is unclear whether the wearing of earphones is thought to be a factor in any of the incidents that have resulted in cyclists in London being killed or seriously injured this month.
The issue of listening to music played a role in the death of a cyclist is at times a point of focus in coroner’s inquiries and court cases.
In 2010, following the death of 29-year-old Amber Mattingley in Southampton, her mother said that she argued with her daughter about the danger of listening to music while riding her bike. The cyclist died when she rode into the back of a lorry trailer, with a coroner recording a verdict of accidental death.
Earlier this year, a coroner’s inquest into the death of 34-year-old Phil Dawn near Mansfield, killed by a train on a level crossing, was told that he was unlikely to have heard the train approaching or the warning shouts of passers-by.
In August 2010 a report from the AA highlighted what the organisation called “iPod oblivion,” which it described as “a trance-like or Zombie state entered by some people using MP3 players, phones and electronic organisers on the move.”
AA President Edmund King said at the time: "We can't stop the march of technology but we need to halt the 'iPod pedestrian, cycle and driver zombies'. Whether on two feet, two wheels or four, too many people are suffering from so-called 'iPod oblivion'.
He added: "When on the move our brains have much to take in and using technological gadgets means that our brains can't always concentrate on so many things at once. This is when we walk into traffic, don't hear the truck or drive cocooned from the outside world."
65 thoughts on “TfL said to have approached researchers over headphones and cyclist safety”
Are they going to take steps
Are they going to take steps towards a ban on car stereos then…
glynr36 wrote:Are they going
Got this from elsewhere:
The law
So what is the law on driving with earphones in?
Well, a spokeswoman from Gwent Police’s road safety division says: “There is no law specifically banning the use of earphones while driving.”
However, the use of earphones at the wheel would fall under the Road Traffic Act offence of not being in control of a vehicle, the spokeswoman adds.
“It would be up to the officer at the roadside to judge whether they thought the driver’s control was impaired by the use of earphones or any other activity such as changing a CD or smoking.
“If a driver listening to earphones was involved in a collision then they could face charges under the more serious offence of dangerous driving.”
Also, section 148 of the Highway Code states: “Safe driving and riding needs concentration. Avoid distractions when driving or riding such as loud music (this may mask other sounds).”
Source:http://www.confused.com/news-views/blogs/blog-is-driving-while-wearing-earphones-illegal
I strongly believe their should be a volume limit, mandatory for new vehicles and could be used retrospectively for the cars you hear thud thud thudding along the road.
Headphones differ significantly from car stereos in that they are all to some degree a noise cancelling devices (save open back) and cause drastically reduced levels of ambient noise especially in the earbud variety.
If you are driving along in a vehicle, with sensible volumes you will be able to hear a distant ambulance siren, when you put what are essentially earplugs into your ears then add even more noise you are much less likely to hear sounds and dangers approaching from the rear, not so much a problem on a motorbike/car equipped with rear facing mirrors.
William Black
Normal earbuds cancel very little noise, though the in-ear type are effective as ear plugs.
However, many cars are better sound-insulated than even those by the simple expedient of closing the doors and windows…
It’s been mentioned before, but motorcyclists often ride with either headphones or ear protectors and that’s not a significant issue. I suspect that it’s less of a problem for a cyclist to listen to music than it is to use a handsfree phone for anyone while in traffic: Cyclists or drivers.
William Black wrote:glynr36
If you are riding along on a bicycle, with, (headphones at), sensible volumes you will be able to hear a distant ambulance siren.
And as for motorcyclists and drivers – well, does the presence of mirrors mean they not need to hear too?! Any motorcyclist wanting to change position to over take or turn right looks over the shoulder just as a cyclist would. (PS many cycles also use mirrors, does this mean they would be exempt from a headphone ban using this logic?!).
In the end, unless you are prepared to legislate for ALL forms of distraction that may dull your sense to a degree, then don’t start. +1 on the various ‘smokescreen’ comments. Quite right. Sort out the infrastructure and road safety issues first.
In terms of the comments
In terms of the comments about car stereos – At the risk of being devil’s advocate, just because “they” do it doesn’t make it right.
Sounds a bit like the “Our lands” justification.
allez neg wrote:In terms of
I’m not using it as justification for it, I don’t agree with riding with headphones either.
But it smacks of yet more victim blaming again, when a motorist has a million and one distractions that as a result have caused deaths (remember the driver playing with a sat nav and taking out a cyclist), that are still deemed acceptable.
If they are going to investigate cyclists headphones then why not drivers car stereos, sat navs, hands free kits, bowls of cereal, laptops and so on…
glynr36 wrote:
If they are
I think this is the point, why single out cyclists? All the evidence points to the problem being drivers not seeing cyclists and pedestrians and that is what causes accidents.
I know when i am on unfamiliar roads i will turn off the car radio because i do find it distracting.
If the argument is about safety, why not ban car stereos? why do we allow cars with ashtrays, cup holders, sat navs etc etc. What is the purpose of blue tooth in a car if it is not to allow the use of distracting gadgets?
Why do we not limit the hours minicab drivers, company car drivers etc can do?
If TfL are investigating whether cyclists wearing headphones is an issue, fine. But i trust they are also dealing with car drivers and their distractions…
glynr36 wrote:Are they going
Not to mention ban deaf people from driving and cycling. Utter rubbish. Cars are so quiet nowadays, you can’t rely on your ears.
I see a number of vehicle
I see a number of vehicle drivers and cyclists wearing headphones / ear buds.
Is every one listening to music or are they hands free waiting for that next most important phone call?
How long will it be before the motorists quote “sorry mate I didn’t hear you”
Wearing headphones blunts
Wearing headphones blunts your perception. It makes it very hard to know if there is a vehicle over your shoulder. If you are having to pull out to move around parked cars into the path of traffic you had better be good at looking over your shoulder to know if it safe. The problem is that most people who wear ear phones while cycling that I see aren’t. It is the height of stupidity on a commute.
To be safe in traffic you
To be safe in traffic you need to be able to look over your shoulder regardless of whether you’re wearing headphones or not. I would never trust my hearing to tell me the difference between a loud car far away or a quiet car just behind me. Or a hybrid that makes almost no noise, for that matter.
TfL ignored consultants over
TfL ignored consultants over several junctions that their redesigns were dangerous and would result in casualties so what does TfL do?
This!
Its a bullshit move to misdirect people from seeing that they have absolutely fucking failed with their shitty transport policy.
Pedestrians and cyclists are being killed daily and the city is choking with the worst pollution in Europe.
zanf wrote:TfL ignored
I get your point about it being the ‘tip’ of the iceberg and misdirection. But do you think wearing headphones is a good idea?
zanf wrote:TfL ignored
Tricky one, who would deny
Tricky one, who would deny that wearing headphones whilst cycling in heavy traffic is Moronic.
But its the fact that you have to cycle in heavy traffic which is dangerous, not the headphones. If there were no trucks and cars bearing down on you whilst you rode then it wouldn’t be a problem.
Boris is using this as a smoke screen to cover up for his lack of progress and will power to sort out cycling;but a lot of fairly important people seem to be calling him to task (probably for their own political ends though).
I wear dark sunglasses whilst
I wear dark sunglasses whilst cycling at night. Its my right to do so regardless of the fact that in an accident I’m the one who’ll get hurt.
Knowing I’m acting within my rights takes all the pain away.
Talking about headphones is
Talking about headphones is simply a cowardly political tactic of avoiding talking about the real issues. Sure, distractions and the dulling of spatial awareness can certainly contribute to incidents but focusing on distractions and the dulling of spacial awareness in vehicles would almost undoubtedly save far more lives. Talk of banning headphones is about as useful as talk of banning children in cars.
btw I choose not to wear headphones when I ride but I often wear them when I’m running. I use small Koss over-ear ones which slightly amplify outside sounds too, so you can listen to music at the same time as being aware of bird song, or traffic, or whatever else is around you
Just diversion tactics,
Just diversion tactics, cycling with headphones is 100% safe, fight this rubbish.
Safe? Is it bo11ocks!
There
Safe? Is it bo11ocks!
There is no single solution to any of this. There are lots of initiatives that will go into making roads safer for everyone – not just cyclists (1,900 pedestrians killed last year)
Just because this one isn’t top of the list doesn’t make it invalid.
As for saying it’s 100% safe. Jesus Christ……
Huw Watkins wrote:Safe? Is
You can drown on a teaspoon of water. You can fall down the stairs and break your neck. You could have anaphylactic shock from eating nuts, or a bee sting.
Nothing is “100% safe” but talking about banning people wearing headphones whilst there is a clear and present danger on our streets from HGVs and the pollution caused congestion and overuse of cars, is fallacious, disingenuous and a callous case of misdirection.
northstar wrote:Just
Really?!
I don’t agree with a ban. And, I agree that the mayor’s statements are, probably, diversionary. But, to say wearing headphones is 100% safe is a little off target.
Jimbonic wrote:northstar
Nope, prove to me it isn’t but I know you won’t be able too, so many shrills.
The reason they don’t want
The reason they don’t want you to wear headphones is so they can try and bully you in their motor vehicles off the public highway which they are deluded enough to think they own, wake up people.
They don’t even own their motor vehicles.
I would be in favour of a ban
I would be in favour of a ban on headphones whilst cycling. For me, my ears act as an extra eye particularly where traffic coming from behind is concerned. To be honest I don’t really like wearing a cycle helmet as I feel it deadens my auditory awareness. When you are in a car, you don’t need to be as hyper-alert to noise as you do on a bike so the car stereo argument is a fatuous one.
The example the girl that
The example the girl that sadly rode into the back of a stationary vehicle, isnt that just anecdote. Correct if I’m wrong but didnt a time-trialler recently die near Hull because he rode into the back of a stationary caravan, I dont recall him wearing earphones.
I’ve been hit twice when NOT
I’ve been hit twice when NOT wearing headphones, NEVER when wearing them. You can’t argue with science.
More victim blaming.
Is TfL
More victim blaming.
Is TfL also looking at banning hands free mobiles in vehicles, as recommended by charity Brake?
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-24982173
& if TfL pass this law (?!)
& if TfL pass this law (?!) banning headphones they are effectively saying “Sorry deaf people, your bike ride to the shops just became illegal”
tarquin_foxglove wrote:& if
tfl have no power whatsoever to pass this law, for the billionth time, wake up, this is all distraction tactics, they have blood on their hands and know it.
northstar
northstar
Can we just stop finding ways
Can we just stop finding ways to blame cyclists for just using the roads. Cars reduce all your senses so much more than riding a bike does; you can’t see much, hear much or feel much. That is the problem.
There is evidence that the
There is evidence that the noise of traffic is actually loud enough to damage your hearing. As a result, I ride year round with cotton wool in my ears, just to protect them a little. Having said that, on the odd occasion where I’ve forgotten my cotton wool I will instead use earphones (plugged into nothing). I would actually argue that all cyclists should be using some form of protection for their ears whenever they are out cycling on busy roads.
As for the effects of listening to music… well surely that would be similar to the effects of music in a car? I know that when I used to have a car I didn’t like loud music because I found it difficult to fully concentrate. If the evidence is that music causes a distraction the same rule should be applied to all road users.
It would be a shame though if there did end up being a ban on using headphones. This morning I rode in with a headphone in one ear listening to Test Match Special. Certainly not a distraction as far as I’m concerned.
So they pass a law which says
So they pass a law which says it’s illegal to cycle with headphones in, but currently they don’t effectively police cars in bike boxes, speeding, red light jumping, it seems from the lorry stopping exercise a good percentage of those aren’t road legal, so the solution is to pass another law which they can’t police and that draws resource from policing the aforementioned, how does that help? What of course it will do is give another excuse if someone dies, oh they were wearing headphones, much like, they weren’t wearing a helmet, or they weren’t in a high-viz jacket. Find this all so depressing. 🙁
A profoundly deaf person is
A profoundly deaf person is perfectly entitled and safe to cycle or drive although they cannot hear any ambient sounds. Thus hearing ambient sounds (although useful) is not a requirement to drive or cycle on the roads.
I think that distraction is really the issue here and the crux of this issue is not the wearing of headphones but what, if anything is being played through them and at what volume. The exact same issues relate to the use of car stereos or headphones in cars.
For example very loud music may be likely to distract more than quieter music. But then surely playing something like language learning packages or audio books can really involve the listener and may be equally or more distracting.
Note my use of words like “may” and “likely” – I’m not quoting facts here but suggesting some likely hypotheses.
Shay
Aren’t we, as cyclists, in
Aren’t we, as cyclists, in danger of being a little childish about this with all the ‘Nevermind us, look what they are doing’ attitude?
I’m a cyclist and a driver. I never wear earphones on my bike, whether that’s on a commute, a weekend ride, a sportive or on the track. I don’t have headphones on in the car either but I do play music using the car stereo.
The reason I wouldn’t wear headphones is that they remove an important sense and you end up effectively handing over a large proportion of responsibility for your own safety to other road users. Given how much we like to moan about what other road users do, I don’t see why any cyclist would want to do this.
Personally, I don’t see any benefit to my dying thought, as I lay under some vehicle, being ‘Well, I think you’ll find that I was in the right there’ when I could have taken some steps to improve my safety and mitigate the risks of being hit.
With regard to the radio debate, the simple fact is that in a car I am less exposed to sound and less reliant on my ears. Apart from having a sound insulation box around me I also have the engine and road noise dulling this sense. Because of the effect of the enclosed nature, It is also harder to gauge the direction a sound is coming from. I do though have three mirrors pointing behind me meaning that I will be using visual cues much more than sound.
The radio, at a normal volume, still allows you to pick up on important sounds that earphones filter out.
mikem22 wrote:Aren’t we, as
And, also, in a car or other motorised vehicle, you are not victim of high relative closing speeds from behind. As you also say, you probably don’t have mirrors on your bike either. So, you would have to look behind you frequently, distracting yourself from avoiding all the other hazards presenting themselves in front of you.
mikem22 wrote:Aren’t we, as
I would say that makes you a mite hypocritical, to be honest.
For one thing, choosing to drive a car _at all_ (with or without the stereo) involves choosing to create a risk (and for others, not just yourself). Why is your choice to create that risk acceptable but the (alleged) risk of having headphones while cycling not?
And the very fact that the car blocks out external noise is surely the point? Why is it OK for cars to do that but not for headphones to do it?
(I grant there’s possibly something in the point about mirrors compensating for lack of aural awareness)
I’m consistent, myself. I don’t wear headphones while cycling (on the road, anyway) and I don’t drive a car. You seem to be OK with engaging in one kind of risky behaviour while reproaching others for doing the other.
Well, to a significant degree the threat to your safety is _created_ by those ‘other road users’, so why should they _not_ take much of the responsibility?
I find pedestrians crossing the road with their backs to the traffic and headphones in to be very annoying – but I still regard it as my responsibility to avoid them, as its me who is creating the threat.
I dunno, to be honest, as to exactly how far to take this, but it irks me slightly, the notion that cyclists’ safety should automatically be entirely their responsibility, when its motorists that create the danger.
Which is an excellent argument for each individual to decide to take what precautions they think appropriate – indeed, its why I don’t wear headphones on the road myself. Its not an argument for making those precautions legally obligatory, is it? (I can’t tell if that’s what you are arguing for or not, mind you).
For a long time the argument you give here was my reason for not cycling at all. Why is it OK for one to cycle at all, if the most important thing is to take full responsibility for avoiding all possible risks from other people’s carelessness?
Its somewhat arbitrary as to how far to take your argument here, and to decide at what point one HAS to expect others to exercise some basic care for your safety. Otherwise you would never leave your house.
Though it could perhaps distract you, mentally.
Really the only point of yours here I think has merit is the one about mirrors, but I’m not sure if that isn’t cancelled out by the fact that a cyclist has much greater all-round visibility.
edit – oh yeah, I also see merit in the point someone made that cyclists are more likely to have someone coming up at speed behind them. Maybe that’s a significant difference.
On the whole I think there’s still a double-standard here. Why should cyclists be expected to have complete aural awareness while motorists are not?
FluffyKittenofTindalos
By that argument, all modes of transport creates risk for someone else, including bikes as these create risk for pedestrians. In fact, extrapolating that to it’s logical conclusion, only walking everywhere is the only safe form of getting from A to B. Also, I only find wearing headphone personally unacceptable and find it difficult to understand why any cyclist would want to. If cyclists want to increase risk to themselves by wearing them then they are free to.. though bear in mind, using your own argument, this is also increasing risk for pedestrians too?
My point here was that comparatively, sound is more important to the relative safety of a cyclist (and pedestrian) than it is to a driver of a car because of the make up of the vehicles.. one being a fast, semi-sound proof box with mirrors and the other being a slow open vehicle with a more cumbersome mechanism for checking what is happening behind.
I’m reproaching nobody, I merely stated that I can’t understand why anyone would want to remove or reduce one sense when using the road. I don’t use headphones on a bike just as I wouldn’t drive out from home with a misted or iced windows. Nor would I drive a car without mirrors. I don’t understand why anyone would want to do any of those things as they all increase risk.
I firmly believe that we are all better off doing as much as possible to ensure our own and other road users safety, regardless of the mode of transport. For most it is not an Us and Them argument as many cyclists are also drivers and therefore. Every journey, regardless of the mode, we should be doing all we can to minimise risk to ourselves and others?
In an ideal world we could all travel around in our own little bubble relying on everyone else avoiding us. But the fact is that there are bad road users out there or ones who make a single mistake.. or even ones that have some kind of sudden medical emergency at the wheel and if they are near me at the time I would want all of the appropriate senses to my mode of transport (whether I’m in the car, on foot or on a bike) serving me as best as they could.
I would never ask anyone I saw on a cycle to remove headphones. It’s up to them, After over 25 years of cycling, I just don’t understand it, that’s all. And if you read all of the threads above there is not one single good argument for riding with them in as far as I can see. The respondents who do are generally saying ‘Yeah I do but what about the crazy stuff drivers do’. Neither can we point to deaf people. I can tell you, by the nature of their handicap they DO feel more at risk riding bikes in traffic.
I don’t think that this should end up as law, I would hate that it did in fact. My point was more that we just can’t point at the car drivers screaming ‘What about them?’ whenever some debate about safe cycling is started.
I’m glad you took to your bike and I’m also happy that you don’t wear your headphones as I believe this is one small measure that makes cycling the roads safer for you. I don’t think it is ONLY cyclists responsibility for avoiding risk. I think EVERYONE on the highways should take equal responsibility for each other.
Unfortunately, until laws that go some way to sharing this responsibility out (such as Strict Liability) are introduced t, it is a sad fact that cyclists have a greater vested interest in their own safety as they are the ones that come off worse in any incident and it is the driver that usually walks away without any action against them. Yes it is maddening but I’d rather by maddened and alive than dead.
mikem22 wrote:My point was
It’s not a debate about safe cycling. It’s a debate about whether or not a new restriction should be imposed on cyclists.
The stated objective is to improve some aspect of cycling safety. The underlying motivation is, for at least a significant proportion of the population, to just to impose yet more onerous restrictions on our free use of the roads.
If, as in the case of head injuries and hearing awareness, a measure of dubious value is proposed then it’s a useful tactic to point out that the same restriction should be imposed on other road users who might also benefit (or not).
Head injuries remain high in the car driving population. It staggers me that people drive them without 5-point HANS racing harnesses and crash helmets to supplement the inadequate air-bags and crumplezones. Similarly, as we all like common sense and our own experience, it seems obvious to me that microphones should be fitted on the outside of cars with the ambient sounds piped in to loudspeakers (dolby surround naturally) to make drivers aware of their external environment.
Or not.
I wear ear bud headphones
I wear ear bud headphones while cycling, and it doesn’t affect my perception or ability to hear traffic, but I don’t have them turned up very loud. I also don’t like listening to loud music in the car, because it’s disorientating and makes me feel too removed from reality. Kinda like the feeling you get when you cover one eye and lose depth perception.
So, from my perspective, the problem isn’t the headphones – it’s the volume of the headphones.
The issue affects pedestrians, too, and you can see the proof from pedestrians who aren’t even listening to ipods. When crossing a road, they use their ears first, and look second. If they don’t hear anything, they’ll often step into the road without even bothering to look, which is a bit of a bugger if there’s a bicycle coming (or an electric car, a few years into the future). With headphones in, people have a higher chance of not looking.
spatuluk wrote:I wear ear bud
So, on one hand you say they have no effect. Then, on the other they are a danger.
Hmmmm
Cyclist 1: Boris, loads of
Cyclist 1: Boris, loads of people are being killed on the roads. Shouldn’t you do something about it?
Boris: Look over there, it’s an African swallow.
Cyclist 1: Actually, I think it’s a European swallow.
Cyclist 2: No, I think Boris is right and it’s an African swallow.
Cyclist 1: You’re talking rubbish, it’s definitely of the European variety.
Cyclist 2: That’s garbage, look at the speed it’s flying whilst unladen.
Cyclist 1: How come you know so much about swallows?
etc etc
Do you see what he’s done there?
I look forward to the
I look forward to the re-introduction of compulsory open-topped cars for motorists in order to aid them in awareness on the roads. After all, the death rate for motorists is shockingly high.
When they can stop drivers
When they can stop drivers using mobiles and eating breakfast whilst driving I shall worry about cyclists wearing earphones.
B.t.w. re the effects of
B.t.w. re the effects of music on car drivers:
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2013/06/130606101550.htm
I haven’t read the published papers, just this summary, so I don’t know what power the study had, but the conclusion seems roughly to be that music in cars is not a detriment to concentrating on the road.
If you’re riding solo it
If you’re riding solo it probably makes little difference to safety, though it insulates you from your surroundings, making cycling more like being in a car, bus, or tube train.
If you’re riding in a group it’s very bad manners and other members will rightly ask you to take your headphones off.
What people do in cars is irrelevant to this particular argument.
Quote:Is TfL also looking at
Indeed, in fact a hands free kit was involved in the collision with Mary Bowers that kick started The Times campaign….
“Beiu was giving directions on a hands-free phone to a colleague and failed to spot Ms Bowers despite her being “in direct sight” through his windscreen for at least 10 seconds before pulling away and turning left across her path.
He jumped from his cab after hearing “bloodcurdling” screams but forgot to apply the handbrake allowing the lorry to continue rolling over Ms Bowers.
He even failed to realise there was a cycle lane on his near side, the court was told.
Beiu also lied to the police by claiming he had not been on the phone at the time of the collision.”
http://www.standard.co.uk/news/crime/2700-fine-is-an-insult-says-father-of-critically-injured-cyclist-mary-bowers-8417866.html
You are a fool if you believe
You are a fool if you believe you are as safe cycling with headphones as without. Why would anyone in their right mind want to risk reducing the effectiveness of one of the key senses that can make you aware of danger, with some transient tune.
I suspect that cycling Bejing
I suspect that cycling Bejing a more physical activity than driving needs more faculties. Watching the road ahead and other users isn’t the same as doing both + pedallIng and balancing AND listening to
music as well. It’s more an issue than not being able to hear cars approaching. In the week when some company invented a coffee cup holder for bikes – I kind you not – the fewer distractions the better!
The number of people that step out into the road without looking because they hear no cars approaching suggests that all the senses should be fully engaged. Barring taste of course… 😉
Was always told in the Forces
Was always told in the Forces to avoid using the hood on various bits of kit, in order to preserve hearing in dangerous situations. (Don’t know why the kit included them, half the time)
Was always advised in martial arts classes to avoid hoods or headphones when in environments you can’t trust as safe. You should be able to feel safe that some idiot isn’t going to surprise you from behind in order to rob you, but you can’t. Sooo, you take appropriate mitigating actions.
I’m not victim-blaming, I’m acknowledging that there are sufficient pricks out there to make a victim of the vulnerable, that defensive measures may be wise. This is, of course, your choice.
I think the stuff about deaf
I think the stuff about deaf cyclists and car stereos are red herrings. Using the roads in a car is a long way from using them on a bike so I don’t see it’s a meaningful comparison. On a bike you need to be alert to hazards that drivers generally don’t, for example people accelerating past you to try and pass you before a traffic island. IMO drivers can afford to be less reliant on their hearing because other drivers rarely put them on the spot from behind the way they frequently do to cyclists, they have lots of mirrors, and they’re wrapped up in a big metal box so they are far less likely to be seriously injured if it does happen.
And yes, deaf people can cycle perfectly well, but I’m not sure what that has to do with whether or not your hearing is a useful bit of equipment on the roads.
But the facts seem to be that the whole cycling-with-headphones thing is a red herring. If it’s not shown to be a contributing factor in any of these incidents then it’s disingenuous of Johnson to use it to try and deflect attention away from the real issues.
Baa Baa.
Baa Baa.
Totally opposed to
Totally opposed to compulsion, you want to listen to music while riding fine, you choose not to wear a helmet fine also. But your two best bits of safety kit money can’t buy are your eyes and your ears. How you use ’em is up to you.
Oh, and being seen when it’s a dark is also a good one. Lights do that quite well (around 50% of cyclists I see don’t have lights that work or at all).
Headphones is an argument
Headphones is an argument that forced me to find my log in to this site for the first time in years.
My take… as with all things, headphone use is entirely safe, if common sense is used.
By that I mean, if you can’t hear whats behind you, you have to look before making a maneuver. As long as you do that, then where is the harm?
When listening to whats coming up behind you without phone, before you could pick up danger it is too late to react anyway.
Now someones comment about turning your head to look behind you is dangerous because it distracts you from things happening in front of you… now that’s just daft, absolutely daft.
1. you simply can’t rely purely on hearing to judge what’s happening behind… there is a reason motorcyclists call it the ‘life saver’ look. By the way, motorcyclists are all but deaf to their environment when riding, but seem to do fine.
2. by making that statement, you are condemning common driving methods used by every driver on the road today…
The main point I want to make is that I don’t understand the argument that with headphones on you are suddenly totally deaf. I sometimes do, sometimes don’t, however when I am phoned up I can still hear cars coming from behind. To block that sound out, you’d need the volume up so loud your ears bleed.
I am sure there are idiots that do that, as I am sure that there are idiots that don’t look behind them when cycling… however it is the idiot that is the problem, not the headphones.
Jimmy Ray Will
No.
And, yes.
You should look behind you.
However, the relative closing speed of motorised traffic is such that, unlike when on a motorcycle or in a car, you need to be constantly making “life saver” checks, if you are to maintain the same awareness as you would without listening.
Let’s take the motorcycle example. If you see a hazard, the chances are that you will have made a visual check both in your mirrors and over your shoulder in the fairly recent past. So another “life saver” at a fair distance from that hazard will give you plenty of time to make a safe manouevre around the hazard. Also, bear in mind that potholes and stones are less of a hazard for a motorcyclist and it is very unlikely that another vehicle (except maybe another motorcycle) will be overtaking you (close by). I’m not talking about overtaking other vehicles here, just avoiding hazards: potholes, car doors, etc.
In the same situation on a bicycle, it IS likely that you will be being overtaken and the closing speed of the traffic behind will be much faster. So, you are much more reliant on your ears to fill in the necessary gaps between your “life savers”.
So far from being daft, I believe having both sight and hearing available to you is very important for your safety.
Having said all of that I totally agree with those comments on here that this debate is somewhat of a red herring, in that it is a diversionary Boris-ism, ie there’s a cock-up in the system and the easiest way to tackle it is to propose an idea that is far removed from the real issue of infrastructure and driver / cyclist training.
It is safe to cycle with
It is safe to cycle with earphones in Malmo and Amsterdam and Bordeaux and all the other places.
Stop the spin Boris and get it fixed!
If TFL wants to do research,
If TFL wants to do research, they could research why many taxi drivers think 6 inches is an acceptable distance to pass a bike, even when there is plenty of room. (I remonstrated with one a couple of days ago for doing this – not the first time either.. perhaps six+ times now). Private and hospital minibus drivers also seem to have shitty anti-cyclist driving habits.
They could research ways to change cars to make drivers look properly when exiting side roads, roundabouts, parking spaces, etc.
Because this earphone BS is not useful to anyone and a complete waste of public money and stinks of victim blaming once again.
In other news, government
In other news, government considers making it law that”all women must wear a chastity belt to prevent rape”.
yet again we are seeing tfl/government focusing on th victim instead of th killers.
do we actually know if any of the recent deaths were attributed to cyclists wearing headphones that effected their hearing?
I have worn my MP3 player but
I have worn my MP3 player but stopped because of my perceived lack of ambient sound.
I am not for banning it any more than I am in favour of enforcing Reflective Hi-Viz and Helmets.
I believe the governement should run an extensive campaign advising cyclists what is recommended to wear or not and why. The ‘why’ should be based on properly researched evidence and not merely uncorroborated opinion. Also the campaign should target lorry and car drivers to advise on better cycling-friendly driving practises.
More public information films for drivers and cyclitsts alike would be very helpful. Unfortunately, Thatcher’s Children pulled the plug on the Central Office of Information after years of poor funding not long ago and now we have a generation of ignorant people who have no idea why wearing a helmet or hi-viz might be a good idea.
I wear an ear bud in my left
I wear an ear bud in my left ear. Doesn’t impair my cycling one bit.
Here we go again. The
Here we go again. The presumption that a safety requirement that doesn’t apply to motorists therefore shouldn’t apply to cyclists.
I’d go so far as to say that when cycling my first awareness of approaching traffic, particularly from the rear, is my hearing, secondly looking and, hopefully, there’s no need to feel, taste or smell.
Restating the obvious, in an incident, the cyclist invariably comes off worse.
Each individual makes their own judgement, however if that judgement reduces awareness don’t shirk away from a shared responsibility.
Is it really such an issue not to wear headphones for the duration of a ride, it could just make you safer.
This is very clearly a tatic
This is very clearly a tatic to divert attention away from the real issues. TfL have made the stark realisation that the solutions to the problems with London’s roads can’t be fixed without investment that is not available or upsetting the road freight industry (which they won’t do). I genuinely think that Boris would like to fix the problems that exist but knows that he will not have the resources to do so or the authority to make meaningfull changes to the way that haulage is carried out in the capital.
On the headphones point specifically, its fair to argue that your awareness is greater without the distraction of music (or talking book/radio play/whatever) and that loud music could block out sounds that you would benefit from hearing. That said I don’t subscibe to the idea that we should all do everything possible to preserve our own safety at all costs. If we went down this route we would be riding about in motorcycle leathers and removing our clippless pedals in case we need to put a foot down in a hurry. Car drivers wouldn’t even consider compact cars; the only safe option would be a great big Volvo and even then they would need to have roll cages installed and wear fire-retardant suits whilst driving. Even pedestrians would need knee and elbow pads and wrist guards. Forget wearing sandals in summer – open toe shoes are far too dangerous.
I know that we are talking about cycling in the urban environment but to look at the debate from a different perspective lets think about longer distance travel. I can only speak personally but I can’t imagine driving for 4-5 hours alone in totally silence (i.e. without the radio on). On this basis if I’m out for a 4-5 hour solo training ride a bit of music wouldn’t go amiss. As others have pointed out we can’t compare the experience of driving a car with that of riding a bike but in this situation it does seem like a ban would be somewhat unreasonable.
Matt
Don’t get me wrong. I’m
Matt
Don’t get me wrong. I’m not advocating compulsion, however for most cycle journeys <60 minutes I struggle to believe that people are so hooked on headphones that they can't do without them. The general opinion in this forum is that they DO restrict awareness.
As for the TfL issues, it's going to be many years, if ever, before there's an acceptable level of safe provision for cyclists. In the mean time the first line of defence is our own expertise and practice.......It's the only thing we've got real control over.
In my opinion, the single most effective measure that won't cost a fortune is legislation implementing "Presumed Liability". That will certainly encourage caution from the biggest artic on the road to the bike on the pavement.
Regards
Peter
Presumed Liability
Please
Presumed Liability
Please consider signing the Government’s E-Petition which is calling for for a change in road traffic law to implement a law of presumed liabilty.
Link to E-Petition
http://epetitions.direct.gov.uk/petitions/57804
NOTE: It seems that this site inhibits such links. Please type the link into a browser.
Safe and Happy Cycling
Posh