A 23-year-old student in France has found out that he’s been fined €400 the hard way: having his money blocked in his bank account, for riding a bike with headphones, despite never receiving any notice of a fine from the police.
Martin, a student in La Rochelle, west France was riding his bike last August when he was stopped by the police. He told France Bleu that he wasn’t aware of the law and thought he was being pulled over for something else.
“I didn’t understand at all why I was getting stopped as I didn’t know the law. I asked them: ‘Am I going too fast?’,” he said.
The amendment was introduced to France’s Highway Code in 2015 banning the use of headphones for anyone in control of a vehicle in a public space, including cars, cycles, e-bikes, and e-scooters.
Martin told the officers that he was unaware of the law and took off his headphones promptly. He didn’t think much of it, until two weeks ago when he found out that €400 — which he points out is equivalent to two months of his rent at the university accommodation — had been blocked in his bank account by the La Rochelle fines office.
If a cyclist is found riding his bike wearing headphones, the usual fine is €135, similar to other minor offences. If paid within 15 days, it’s reduced to €90. If the fine is not paid within 45 days, however, it can rise to €375, or in Martin’s case, €400.
He said that he did not receive any prior contact regarding the fine before the sum was frozen in his account. “They weren’t able to find my address [to send a notice] but they did find my bank account very quickly,” he said.
Jean-François Changeur, who specialises in road cases claimed that Martin can still appeal the fine, and if the public prosecutor’s office is convinced of his good faith, along with the fact that he never received a notice to pay the fine, he may be exempt from the whole amount.
Can cyclists be fined for riding with headphones in the UK?
No, in the UK, riding with headphones is not illegal, unlike France as well as Spain and Italy. However, cycling without due care and attention is an offence under the Road Traffic Act 1988. Just a few weeks ago, the Met police was heavily criticised after its attempts to prosecute a cyclist who filmed a driver using their phone under the same offence.
Dave Clifton submitted the footage of the driver using the phone, which is also an offence and can draw up to six penalty points on your licence and a £200 fine, as well as losing your licence if the driver passed their driving test in the last two years.
The police force let the driver by sending an advisory letter, however it deemed Clifton’s riding as posing a “danger to other road users” because he was “riding in the middle of the road”.
After the heavy backlash, the Met dropped the charges and apologised for any “stress and inconvenience” caused just one day before the cyclist was due to face trial for cycling without due care and attention.
However, fining cyclists under the Public Space Protection Order (PSPO) has become somewhat of a commonplace occurrence in the UK, as many councils have started implementing the act to stop people from riding their bikes in city centres.
The council most infamous for its somewhat liberal usage of the act is perhaps the North East Lincolnshire Council, which has been making headlines for the last couple of years for slapping cyclists with hefty fines.
Last year, a cyclist was ordered to pay over £1,100 in fines and costs for riding her bike through Grimsby town centre, just months after unhappy locals claimed that the council was imposing the cycling ban unfairly and targeting “old and slow” cyclists, instead of cracking down on anti-social behaviour.
And a year before that, an 82-year-old cyclist became somewhat of a legend in the road.cc archives after claiming that he would rather go to jail than pay the £100 fine he received for cycling in Grimsby town centre.
He said: “I’ve been riding my bike around here for 40 years and have never once been fined. When he gave it to me I told him, ‘stick it up your arse’. I’m more annoyed about it because my biking is what keeps me going.”
Earlier this month, a North East Lincolnshire councillor claimed that the fine was a “great result for our enforcement teams” after a cyclist was fined £500 for breaching the PSPO.
More recently, Southend Council also made the headlines after its deputy council leader said that issuing a fine of £100 to cyclists who ride in the town centre was “one of the few options left” for the council in order to take care of anti-social behaviour complaints.
66 thoughts on “Cyclist finds he’s been fined €400 for riding with headphones after having money blocked in bank account, despite French police never sending a penalty notice”
French Communist Party
French Communist Party
Yup. Woke EU nonsense.
Yup. Woke EU nonsense.
Wait, bikes are woke, so
Wait, bikes are woke, so fining people on bikes is anti-woke, but Europeans are woke, so fining Europeans on bikes is anti-woke, but the French are woke, so the French fining someone is obviously woke.
Woke = whatever a right
Woke = whatever a right winger doesn’t like. The wind direction changes less frequently.
Just reading that gives a bit
Just reading that gives me a bit of a headache. Which is probably very woke.
john_smith wrote:
Snowflake!
Thick twat.
Thick twat.
That is one of the dumbest
That is one of the dumbest memes out there..
It really is entirely
It really is entirely accurate. None of these Gammonflakes can even define what “woke” means. It appears to be everything from not wanting racism to a minor detail on a football shirt.
Cycling with headphones on:
Cycling with headphones on: unacceptable.
Driving a car with the windows closed and stereo on: perfectly OK.
Driving a car without rear
Driving a car without rear-view and side-view mirrors should also be perfectly fine using your logic then.
Stop comparing cars and bicycles, they are not the same.
Proper jobsworths fining this
Proper jobsworths fining this poor guy. I’ve spent many days cycling in France over the past couple of years, haven’t had an issue with wearing headphones, even in cities like Paris and Lille.
Do they fine deaf people for cycling too, or are they not allowed to ride bicycles at all? ?♂️
Boopop wrote:
It’s extraordinary how often this argument appears when talking about the use of headphones when cycling. Surely whichever side of the debate one favours it is perfectly obvious that it is nonsense to draw an equivalence between a person whose hearing is involuntarily impaired and a person voluntarily choosing to impair their hearing. Would you apply it to other senses, e.g. because people with imperfect vision are permitted to cycle would it make sense for a person with perfect vision to wear glasses that impaired that vision?
I don’t think it is entirely
I don’t think it is entirely nonsense. The pertinent question is how important is that sense to being safe on the road.
You’ve identified sight as being important (and rightly so) – but if one’s sight is sufficiently imperfect, they are not legally permitted to drive a motor vehicle (AFAIK there is no strict test for cycling in the same way, but if you are incapable of seeing enough to cycle safely presumably that could be considered careless or dangerous cycling).
But let’s pick another sense. Some people are involuntarily anosmic. There is no restriction on their use of the road (driving/cycling etc.). Would you have a problem with someone voluntarily sticking a bung up their nose to block their sense of smell? Or anti-pollution masks which presumably dull smells to some extent? Presumably not – the sense of smell is not important to being safe on the road (even if, as a cyclist, it is occassionally useful in navigating to a coffee shop).
I would say hearing is somewhere in between. Legally, there is no restriction on deaf people cycling or driving – the powers that be have decided that the sense of hearing is not necessary to be able to use the roads sufficiently safely. But hearing is not completely irrelevant – audible cues are widely used to aid in safety (vehicles are required to have working horns; emergency vehicles have sirens; lorries have reversing sounds and increasingly audible turning warnings too).
I absolutely agree, I don’t
I absolutely agree, I don’t think cycling with headphones on/being deaf is a sufficient handicap to say you should be barred from the roads, but I do think that voluntarily giving up one of your senses that can be used as a secondary protection against harm is foolishness. As a heuristic I would say that removing my hearing when cycling would impair my safety between 5% – 15%, depending on the type of road and how busy it was. Personally I’m not prepared to give up that margin just so I can listen to music, even though I love it.
You can be declared legally
You can be declared legally blind, so not permitted to drive, but legally still allowed to cycle on roads.
As for the hearing side, I was riding into a 20mph headwind for best part of an hour at the weekend, I couldn’t hear f all, other than white noise, I’d have happily worn some ear plugs/headphones to cut the noise level down.
Rendel Harris wrote:
what about the equivalence that a cyclist with headphones can still hear more than a driver in their sealed glass box before they even turn on the music system which is perfectly legal.
wycombewheeler wrote:
Fine, that’s a valid equivalence. Trying to say that people who say it’s foolish to cycle with headphones on are effectively saying that deaf people should be banned from cycling is not.
Rendel Harris wrote:
Having made a similar argument myself in the past, I disagree.
If you look at the purpose behind the law, presumably it is to do with whether it is safe (or causes danger to others) or not. If impaired hearing, whether voluntary or not, is unsafe, then why is one group allowed to ride and not the other?
I’m not convinced that impaired vision can be compared to impaired hearing as they have different roles for road danger. Vision is most often used for situations ahead and around you, whereas hearing is mainly used for situations behind you and I think it’s debatable as to how much value that provides. e.g. when you hear an engine approaching, do you take evasive action when cycling in any but the most extreme cases?
(I was trying to think of a common instance when people impair their eyesight voluntarily, but can only come up with sunglasses and I don’t think they really count as impairing)
This is the trouble, I’m in
This is the trouble, I’m in no way supporting the law nor am I saying that I think it should be against the law to wear headphones nor that it’s fair that people should be punished for wearing headphones when drivers are allowed to have music as loud as they like, I’m just saying that voluntarily impairing your hearing with headphones is, in my view, foolish. In no way supporting the law in France or a similar law being brought in here, even though every time one says this one is accused of doing so.
In terms of the value of hearing for assessing road danger, I find it invaluable; riding in London traffic I can often assess the aggressiveness or otherwise of the driver behind me through their engine note and I can also tell what type of vehicle is coming up behind me and be ready, for example, to brace against turbulence when being passed by a bus or a lorry. It’s also useful on cycle paths to be able to hear faster riders approaching and calling out/ringing bells so one can make room for them, it’s highly frustrating to be stuck behind someone with earphones riding in the middle of the track and politely calling out “coming on your right mate” and getting no reaction.
There isn’t really a parallel example of people impairing their eyesight, I was just using that as a “what if?” I suppose an equivalent would be the Google Glass heads up display where, if I recall correctly, one could have maps or whatever projected into one’s field of vision. Cycling with that on would seem to me pretty foolish, though judging by the reactions on here I would then be told that drivers are allowed satnav so why would I stop cyclists having it…
So you also think it’s
So you also think it’s foolish for pedestrians to wear headphones..
I get earaches cycling without ear protection; my hearing is certainly impaired but not hearing normal traffic noise is a blessing, not a negative.
grOg wrote:
If pedestrians were running at 15-20mph whilst sharing the road with cars I’d think it was, yes. Crikey, I thought the deaf people cycling argument was a false equivalence but at least there’s an argument to be had there, well done for trumping it with something that makes no sense whatsoever.
When I ride in the rain, my
When I ride in the rain, my vision through my water covered glasses definitely impairs my vision.
grOg wrote:
I find it’s often better to remove cycling glasses when it’s raining hard for that reason.
Rendel Harris wrote:
I honestly don’t see how it’s ‘nonsense’. It doesn’t matter if the impairment is voluntary or not, what matters is the outcome. If cycling whilst totally deaf is considered safe, you cannot claim that cycling with headphones is dangerous without contradicting your stance on deaf cyclists. If driving a 2.5 tonne Range Rover at 70mph whilst deaf is considered safe, you cannot claim that cycling with headphones on is dangerous without contradicting your stance on deaf drivers. That’s before we even get into open-back vs closed-back headphones, or how headphones compare to car radios, or even cars just having the windows up.
I’m with you on the voluntarily giving up a sense, and I wouldn’t do it either, but when people make this argument, they aren’t suggesting that deaf people should be banned from cycling as well, they’re making an equivalence between the “safety outcome” of a deaf cyclist vs a headphone-wearing cyclist – they’re making an equivalence between the Government considering one safe and the other unsafe. You cannot say that the latter is dangerous whist maintaining that the former is safe.
The equivalence/argument is perfectly valid IMO.
I have not said that deaf
I have not said that deaf people cycling is dangerous, however I do believe that a deaf person is probably less safe on the roads – not to any degree that they should be banned – than a person with full hearing. This is backed up, anecdotally, by two friends of mine who have experienced severe hearing loss as they have got older and they both find that it makes cycling more difficult for them. In the same way, I would not and have not stated that people cycling with headphones is dangerous, but I do believe it takes away some element of safety. Cycling whilst totally deaf may be considered safe, is it considered as safe as cycling when being able to hear? I think for most people the answer will be no, and therefore it is foolish for people voluntarily to relinquish their ability. If people do not have the ability in the first place, that is an entirely different matter. There’s a difference between being dangerous, a word which you have used but I have not, and being less safe than one could be.
Then – and I apologise if I’m
Then – and I apologise if I’m being thick here – but I’m struggling to see what the problem is with the comparison being made in the initial comment. When people make this argument, they’re not suggesting that voluntary and involuntary impairments are the same, they’re asking why one “safety outcome” is considered unacceptable whilst another, identical “safety outcome” (or in the case of deaf drivers, a higher risk “safety outcome”) is considered totally fine.
I completely agree with you that cycling with impaired hearing (voluntary or involuntary) is less safe than being able to hear cars around you and that I wouldn’t personally do it, and I also do not think that cyclists with involuntary hearing impairments should be banned from the road.
However, cycling with headphones is one of those things that gets quite a significantly disproportionate amount of flak for the risk it presents, and I think that pointing out the deaf cyclists and drivers are considered safe is a perfectly reasonable way of making that point.
BalladOfStruth wrote:
You’re not being thick, maybe I haven’t explained my opinion clearly enough, but the reason one outcome is considered unacceptable and the other isn’t is that in the case of deaf people they have no choice about not being able to hear and it would be unfair and discriminatory to ban them from the roads on bicycles because of it. In the case of people without hearing impairment, they have a choice, and in my opinion the sensible choice is not to voluntarily impair your hearing. Being told to be sensible is not discrimination.
Let’s try an analogy from another scenario (and I realise it may open a can of worms so Covid/vaccine deniers, please don’t bother!): during the pandemic there were some people who were genuinely unable, due to physical or psychological reasons, to wear a mask. This was generally accepted and arrangements were put in place to accommodate such people. This did not mean that it was generally accepted that people could just refuse to wear a mask because they couldn’t be bothered or didn’t care. There was a definite distinction between groups who had a genuine reason not to comply and those who were just being obstreperous. I would say there is the same world of difference between saying that people who can hear shouldn’t ride bicycles deliberately cutting off their hearing and saying that deaf people, who have no choice in the matter, shouldn’t ride.
You mention that it would be
You mention that it would be discriminatory to ban deaf cyclists/drivers from the road and yet vision impaired drivers are disallowed from driving. That’s due to vision being critical to driving safely and hearing is hardly ever relevant. That’s also why hearing is not mentioned in the Highway Code – it’s only of any use when you cannot see other traffic.
Having a law that distinguishes between voluntary wearing of headphones (and the subsequent reduction of hearing) and having a “genuine” hearing issue don’t really make any sense. What if they catch a deaf cyclist wearing headphones to keep their ears warm?
hawkinspeter wrote:
Mate, where have I said anywhere on this thread that I support a law to stop people wearing headphones? I have gone out of my way to say that I would not support such a law! I have simply said that I think it is foolish for people with good hearing to impair that sense by listening to music when cycling. I don’t believe that hearing is critical to cycling in the same way as vision, as I have said, I do believe that listening carefully to what’s going on around you can improve safety by maybe 10/15%. That’s all.
Calm down, I’m not saying
Calm down, I’m not saying that you support that law.
I do disagree with your 10-15% estimate though. Maybe 0.1%, I reckon.
hawkinspeter wrote:
Maybe that’s your experience, which is fine. For me, riding pretty much every day in central London, I rely on hearing to give me an initial warning of what’s coming behind, how close it is and how fast it’s going, not to mention (living close to South London’s biggest A&E) to hear emergency vehicles coming. Definitely not 0.1% for me.
hawkinspeter wrote:
No, making any comparison between voluntary wearing of headphones and a person with a genuine hearing issue doesn’t make any sense. It is well established that those with a sensory impairment make better use of remaining senses. A blind person typically hears and smells more acutely than the rest of us, and a deaf person makes more use of his eyes than the rest of us. There is no equivalence between somebody voluntarily listening to Coldplay at 110dB to a person with permanent audio impairment. (Although the former may well become the latter)
Rendel Harris wrote:
There’s no “denier” to it. The better quality evidence available on masks – pre-pandemic, and to date – can not find a significant protective effect for community mask use against respiratory illnesses.
The evidence that finds significant protective effects is all lower quality (not RCTs, observational or mechanical).
Masks were largely pushed by idiots, for political reasons.
Bravo ! Really well
Bravo ! Really well articulated. ?
It is absolutely a legitimate
It is absolutely a legitimate argument and has been sucessfully used in Australia to defeat any attempt to make headphone wearing illegal for cyclists. As for vision, you are legally required to wear glasses to drive a motor vehicle if you need to wear glasses to pass the vision test, but not if you are riding a bicycle.
The thing that surprised me
The thing that surprised me most about this article was not that riding with headphones is illegal in France but that student accommodation is only €200 a month…
My daughter goes to an
My daughter goes to an international school in Paris and the prices are nothing like they are in the UK. And university education is free. Also ‘le flic’ are devious. Twice I’ve been fined for ‘speeding’ and going through a red light with zero evidence provided. The police surrounded me, asked for my ID and then put it in their pocket and told me I would get it back when I paid the fine. I asked for evidence that I had been speeding – a photo or a speed gun. Nothing, so I had to pay 100 euros to get my ID back. And the same with the red light. So I believe this article on both counts.
That’s the sort of traffic
That’s the sort of traffic policing you’d expect in the global south..
It’s more like £200 a week
It’s more like £200 a week here, and that’s for a basic room with a shared bathroom and kitchen.
bensynnock wrote:
But mould and dodgy electrics are included in the price, so it’s a better deal than it looks.
They took money directly from
They took money directly from his bank account, for a traffic offence? It concerns me that tin foil hat wearers might not be 100% barking bonkers. Best keep some cash stuffed under the mattress, as a hedge.
Muddy Ford wrote:
Tell that to drivers here and they’ll be donning hi-vis vests, blockading mayors in their city halls and probably setting fire to
sheepplanters, quicker than you can sayou la la‘oh I say’!Muddy Ford wrote:
It’s not tin foil hat stuff. It’s what quite a number of national and EU level politicians have been describing as what they want for the future – complete insight into and control over everyone’s finances. All to fight the bad “terrorists” of course. Which is always how power grabs are justified (in the UK power grabs over civil liberties in anti-terror laws ended up being used widely by councils, for things like breaking bin rules).
Yup. Where powers exist they
Yup. Where powers exist they will be used.
Now – that isn’t necessarily for “no reason at all”. AFAIK the cases which have come to light more recently involved investigations in to actual crimes (albeit “low level” ones, slightly above the level of “nuisance”) rather than sheer harrassment. But of course it’s simple to say “we had a duty to investigate to find out if there was a case to answer” and some of the original concerns were use of these over matters of “bending school cachement regulations” and “dogshit”…
Probably the (chance) blessing is in the UK the police tend not to regularly send in SWAT teams armed with hand-me-down military-threat-level hardware – unlike in e.g. the US. Though of course when they do go armed sometimes people do get killed.
Muddy Ford wrote:
Scrap plans to scan accounts of benefit claimants or risk new scandal, MPs told
“The Department for Work and Pensions is seeking new powers to require banks to trawl the accounts of millions of people who receive benefits in an effort to cut the £8bn currently lost annually to welfare fraud and error. The plan is close to being passed into law by parliament and will be “fully automated”, the government said. It is likely to use artificial intelligence to flag activity considered suspicious by the DWP.”
I’m off to buy shares in Alcan.
Canada blocked bank accounts
Canada blocked bank accounts of protestors..
Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau has taken the unprecedented step of invoking the Emergencies Act to crack down on anti-vaccine mandate protests.
With no need for court orders, banks can freeze personal accounts of anyone linked with the protests.
Crikey. Have their got their
Crikey. Have they still got their knickers in a twist about covid jabs? How long ago was that? Or is it something else now?
In Spain the fines for this
In Spain the fines for this are about the same.
I got fined once, after the police, who were also on bicycles managed to catch up with me.
I didn’t notice them before, as I was wearing headphones.
I don’t do that on the road anymore.
What is the exact law? I.e.
What is the exact law? I.e. how are headphones defined? Does it include open-ear, head-phones? I.e. the ones that are basically small speakers worn /near/ the ear, but not over it (some claim to be “bone conducting”, which isn’t really true).
Any form of headsets
Any form of headsets (earphones or headphones).
And are car drivers banned
And are car drivers banned from having headsets?
Talking on the phone while driving, even via a hands-free earphone, is /proven/ to impair driving performance, aking to having an illegal blood alcohol level. So… that’s banned too, surely? Right?
Paul J wrote:
Yes. That was the whole point of bringing in the law. It applies to all road users with a few exceptions such as motorcycle instructors.
So, I wear hearing aids. Am
So, I wear hearing aids. Am i illegal on a bike in France?
Whats is a head phone? Over-the-ear cans and in-ear buds? Behind the ear thingies with an in-ear bit? I have no idea.
My hearing aids also connect via Bluetooth to my phone to play music. Am i now more illegal in France?
But, I can adjust the balance between amplified external noise and streamed music so that I can hear both. Am I now confused? Yes.
I can also tune out noises that I don’t want, such as background chatter in a crowded room, or turn up noises that I like, like bird song.
But, I can get into a car, turn the music up so that the whole car is shaking, and that seems to be legal, with or without hearing aids. Because engine…..
Driving with loud music is
Driving with loud music is also illegal in France.
So the solution is a huge
So the solution is a huge feck off ghetto blaster so everyone can listen in. or some speakers and a DJ set up…….
You mean like this?
You mean like this?
It depends really where you
It depends really where you drive, where I mostly ride now I would not feel comfortable with headphones, but in the city centre with no segretated lanes, I consider suicidal the riders I see with headphones. On the other hand, relaxed cycling with headphones in countries with strong cycling commuting infra and education like Netherlands or Denmark would not seem unsafe.
In any case, three digit fines for cyclists seem crazy to me, this is the price of more or less a bicycle while the chances of harming somebody else are minimal.
I’m surprised by how many
I’m surprised by how many people seem to be expressing opinions against this law. Let’s remember that this law came in specifically to stop the use of hands free kits by drivers. The law is there to protect cyclists not penalise us. OK so its not perfect, and yes, drivers can still crank up their car stereos, but try banning those! I’d also argue that the law came too late, as by 2015 most cars were being fitted with bluetooth systems. Nevertheless, any small step towards reducing the isolation of drivers from what is going on around them must be a good thing. Or is it just that folk here expect an exception to be made in the case of cyclists. (Incidentally, I live in France, and it does seem as if motorcyclists think the law doesn’t apply to them, headphones integrated into helmets seem to be quite common)
No eating, applying makeup or
No eating, applying makeup or listening to loud music
Eating a sandwich behind the wheel has become prohibited as it is deemed to prevent proper concentration by the motorist on the road. Other entertainment will also be outlawed. Putting on makeup whilst driving is also banned, as is playing your music too loud. These offences are punishable by a fine of € 75.
Headphones banned
It is now illegal to drive with any form of headsets (earphones or headphones) in a car or on a motorbike. The only form of communication allowed is through loudspeakers for cars or via specially equipped helmets for motorbikers. Fines imposed for breaking these laws will be 135 euros and 3 points taken from your license. Alternative suggestions include a handsfree speaker, handsfree radio transmitter, GPS systems & integrated phone systems already built into some cars.
Griff500 wrote:
I’d say that banning hands-free kits being used by drivers is more to do with the distraction caused by holding a conversation with a remote person (a person in the same vehicle knows when to stop talking when more attention is demanded of the driver) rather than the reduction in hearing ability. As far as I know, listening to music is much less distracting unless you’re head-banging along to Queen or something.
I don’t think that it’s worthwhile trying to prosecute cyclists for not paying enough attention as they invariably are a lot more attentive due to not being shut in a metal box. Driver inattentiveness is a real problem that ruins lives, but cyclist inattentiveness is more likely to lead to some bruises and a teaching moment.
hawkinspeter wrote:
…..except that holding a conversation with a remote person is not what was banned. It is still legal in France to hold a conversation with a remote person through the car ICE system
Griff500 wrote:
It could be that the law has been poorly targetted, or maybe it’s the difficulty of policing in-car systems as an outside observer won’t see anything other than the driver talking (possibly to themselves?).
https://www.rospa.com/policy/road-safety/advice/drivers/driver-distraction
hawkinspeter wrote:
The only evidence I have seen quoted by countries who have imposed the ban is from the Nelson and Nilsson 1990 study, where drivers in a simulator had their performance assessed listening to music from a Walkman through headphones and a dashboard speaker (nothing to do with phone calls). Reading through the paper, it does seem to lack scientific rigour in a few areas (too many “probably” and “likely” statements for my liking), but the quoted 14% increase in reaction time by headphone wearers to unexpected events does seem significant and worthy of further study. It seems strange that France, Italy, and others reacted to this study 25 years later without further evaluation, and update to 2015 technology, such as wireless rather than wired headsets and phone calls in addition to music.
My local postman rides a
My local postman rides a bicycle to deliver mail and he is completely deaf; does France ban deaf people from riding bicycles?
The wind plays havoc with my
The wind plays havoc with my tinitus so I’m usually wearning ear plugs on my rides. I’m an old motorcycle rider (ear plugs always too) so my heads on a swivel!