More than two thirds of road users in the UK support a ban on cyclists wearing headphones while riding their bikes, according to a new survey conducted among 35,000 road users across 32 countries worldwide – with a British road safety charity describing them as “the ultimate distraction.”
The E-Survey of Road Users’ Attitudes (ESRA), whose partners include governments and national road safety associations, found that across the sample as a whole, 65.8 per cent of respondents backed such a ban, including 68.2 per cent of respondents in the UK, wiith around 1,000 people quizzed in each country. We don’t know if respondents were asked whether listening to music while driving should also be banned.
In Europe, support for a headphones ban was highest in Spain, at nearly 80 per cent, and lowest in Finland, at 36 per cent. Countries with the strongest cycling cultures such as the Netherlands and Denmark saw a small minority of road users in favour of a ban.
Globally, more women than men were in favour of a ban while by age, 18-24 year olds were most opposed to such a measure, with 53.5 per cent of that age group worldwide expressing support, but only 44.1 per cent in Europe.
Neil Greig, Policy and Research Director at the road safety charity IAM RoadSmart, commented: “It’s clear that the majority of road users are very concerned about distracted cyclists wearing headphones or earbuds while riding. These findings were consistent right across the world in this substantial survey.
“Being plugged in to either headphones or earbuds is the ultimate distraction, as it completely shuts you off to your surroundings, creating a potential road safety risk to yourself, pedestrians and other road users around you. This is even more critical with the popularity and increasing prevalence of noise-cancelling equipment.”
He added: “There are plans to update the Highway Code being discussed as we speak, so now is a great time to have an informed debate about the best way for cyclists to avoid potentially fatal distractions.”
In fact the consultation to planned changes to the Highway Code closed last month, with no reference in the Department for Transport’s proposed new wording made to banning headphones and similar audio equipment for cyclists or other road users for that matter.
The Highway Code does, however, say that both motorists and cyclists should avoid distractions, with listening to music at excessive volume, for example, potentially falling into that category.
The government has however consistently rejected calls for cycling while using headphones to be banned – including one in November 2013 from Boris Johnson, then Mayor of London, after the deaths of six riders in the capital although he did not cite any evidence of audio devices being a factor in those fatalities.
> Government “will not legislate” for Mayor of London’s cyclist headphone ban
In 2018, researchers in the Netherlands published research which found that wearing headphones while riding “negatively affects perception of sounds crucial for safe cycling.”
> Dutch study: Using headphones “Negatively affects perception of sounds crucial for safe cycling”
The authors of the study suggested that cyclists listening to music or talking on their phone in a country with less cycling infrastructure than the Netherlands might be more at risk.
Commenting on that study, Duncan Dollimore of Cycling UK said at the time: “Our view is that wearing headphones is inadvisable, particularly if listening at high volumes or with headphones that completely shut out sound, but the idea that headphone wearing cyclists are any more of a problem than headphone wearing pedestrians is not borne out by any evidence we have seen.”
Whether or not to wear headphones while riding is of course a matter of personal choice, with some taking the view that listening to music can distract from what is happening around them.
Others, however, insist that they are able to maintain awareness of their surroundings while wearing headphones, and that banning them would be similar to saying that deaf people are not allowed to ride bikes.
100 thoughts on “Two thirds of road users say cyclists should be banned from using headphones, claims survey”
To quote, “Being plugged in
To quote, “Being plugged in to either headphones or earbuds is the ultimate distraction, as it completely shuts you off to your surroundings, creating a potential road safety risk to yourself, pedestrians and other road users around you.”.
It is strange, I thought we had something called eyes, so how does having something in your ears shut you off completely to your surroundings? Is that any different to someone in a car, often with the radio or music playing? Is there any statistical evidence of accidents caused due to cyclists being distracted by headphones? There is certainly statistical evidence of drivers being distracted by any number of things. Now, if it was talking about the idiots I see on bikes having a phone conversation or reading their phone while riding, that is certainly something I have a problem with…
squired wrote:
I occasionally see cyclists on the wrong side of the road, cycling hands-free, wearing all black at night, with no lights. I think headphones are the least of their issues. Some of us unfortunately are just begging to become a statistic.
I don’t think wearing
I don’t think wearing headphones is a good idea when riding, I won’t do it as find hearing helps identify vehicles coming for behind, which in turn changes how I position myself.
Given there are deaf bike riders out there I can’t see how it can be banned though. Likewise unless headphones were banned on all vehicles and horses I can’t see how it would work. But mostly the first point.
Others, however, insist that
Others, however, insist that they are able to maintain awareness of their surroundings while wearing headphones, and that banning them would be similar to saying that deaf people are not allowed to ride bikes.
I started cycling wearing headphones at low volume years ago to phase out a lot of the loud traffic and horns on my busy commute. I’ve found in recent years they’re brilliant at avoiding earache (especially in cold months). Can’t comment on noise cancelling headphones as i don’t use those. Anyone else have a similar experience?
If we’re banning music by the way then i agree with the above argument that it should also lead to a ban on car radios and deaf cyclists and drivers.
What a load of rubbish.
What a load of rubbish.
Does anyone know roughly what percentage of road collisions are caused by cyclists using headphones etc? Meanwhile there are a significant number of collisions caused by drivers not paying enough attention to their surroundings and their driving, so why isn’t the question about whether or not vehicles should be fitted with music systems?
The vast majority of the time, hearing only provides information (to a cyclist) about traffic behind them so simply looking behind you before performing a maneouvre will determine whether it is safe to do so. Even if you have hawk-like ears, you should still be checking behind you before attempting a maneouvre, so there shouldn’t be much difference.
Besides which, it is perfectly legal to cycle or drive whilst suffering from hearing difficulties, so unless the law is changed to discriminate against the deaf, I can’t see that a earbud law is going to be effective.
personally, I’m with Duncan
personally, I’m with Duncan Dollimore on the specifics or the issue, but more importantly if this is an “x should be banned” or “y should be made to do z” kind of distraction pitch from the main issue, that cars cause 99% of the danger, then yes load of rubbish.
hawkinspeter wrote:
193%. Freeloading, healthy, law-breaking, probably-communist bastards
Captain Badger wrote:
193.4% actually, you’ve rounded it down to make cyclists look better.
Personally I do not wear
Personally I do not wear earphones/buds while cycling as I like all my senses at maximum alertness.
Equally, I respectfully suggest that pedestrians on shared use routes such as Sustrans cycle routes should also consider not using earphones. Makes bell ringing or calling out warnings of approach from behind near ineffective.
Fine, let’s make it
I personally never wear headphones whilst cycling but the proposed ban is fine with as long as it’s implemented consistently.
So that means no headphone use by people driving a vehicle, and all car radios / entertainment systems must be automatically disabled from use whilst the vehicle is moving.
As noted below – the obvious
As noted below – the obvious parallel is to ban music in cars, and to forbid windows to be closed in 30mph areas at least. Fat chance.
Are they telling me that I should also remove my hearing aids – which also happen to stream music or the radio (with outstanding sound quality) and the phone, and let me hear too. I can also tune them if I were minded to, to turn down car and wind noise and turn up the birds in the trees……
I can also turn the music down and external sounds up – or music up and external sounds up. More than you can do in a car….
I have read of people saying
I have read of people saying they see no issue wearing earphones whilst driving. Help !
I’m still not clear what me hearing a car is nearby is going to give me. There will always be cars nearby. I would check it is safe to do so before changing direction MSMMM.
Are there stats for pedestrians crossing the road without looking because they did not hear a bike?
Sole study here on earphones and cars
https://rideonmagazine.com.au/an-ear-on-the-traffic/
You are forgetting that music
You are forgetting that music or audio books (yes really) are distracting, not just for blocking out environmental sounds.
NPlus1BikelightsNJerseys
In which case, sound systems must be banned from cars. If what you say is true, it is clear that that is the more pressing emergency….
Couple of examples from a
Couple of examples from a single traffic light controlled junction with a pelican crossing on my daily commute to demonstrate how hearing helps me in addition to the primary sense of sight.
If I hear the beeps as I approach, usually on the cycle lane on the inside of a queue of stationary vehicles, then I know for sure that people are crossing and that sometimes they go between the cars, so I am extra vigilante and aware of that possibility. When the beeps stop I have approx 8 seconds until the lights change in my favour, this allows me to moderate my speed so I don’t have to stop or even use my brakes.
I don’t understand why anyone willingly gives up a primary sense, especially in urban environments which are unfortunately hazardous for cyclists and pedestrians and where maximum awareness of what is going on around you surely has to be a good idea?
It’s not just the reduction in sound, but the distraction of being in the zone, listening to music, or The Archers, or Harry Potter or whatever it is people listen to.
Could you not go by the
Could you not go by the lights being red to warn you of pedestrians ?
You must have very good hearing at that distance to know the beeps have stopped.
I’m not going to deny that
I’m not going to deny that additional sensory information is important but your example of the pedestrian crossing makes you sound like a car driver that sees the yellow flashing light and ploughs through regardless.
You really shouldn’t be detecting noise and adding 8 seconds but be slowing and/or preparing for that person that’s run accross at the last second or the elderly person that appears at 10 seconds etc.
alansmurphy wrote:
You think I’m not aware of that possibility? As I state, I use my sense of hearing to augment my visual awareness of my surroundings in checking that it is safe to proceed. Better awareness leads to better anticipation leads to greater safety, surely you cannot disagree with that?
Despite some evidence e.g:
https://www.livescience.com/36092-injuries-deaths-pedestrians-wearing-headphones.html
I think this discussion is actually a bit irrelevant. As far as I am concerned, and whilst you really shouldn’t, you can be wandering in the road at midnight, half naked (you can decide which half), covered in soot, wearing a soundproof bag on your head and paralytic from Babycham and as either a car driver or a cyclist it is absolutely my responsibility not to collide with you. Road safety organisations need to change the tone of campaigns to emphasise the responsibilities of vehicle operators first and foremost.
Mungecrundle wrote:
I’d love to, but yer know… lockdown and all… 🙂
I can’t ride with most
I can’t ride with most headphones (don’t really like walking down street with most anymore), but decent bone conduction ones are fine. Ban would be fine, if like others say, it’s applied to all road users. Same with mobile phone use.
I think a distinction should
I think a distinction should be drawn between cycling on a shared use path and cycling on the road, as that determines the risk to others.
On a path shared with pedestrians, there’s a risk of harm to more vulnerable people through cycling while wearing headphones (distraction, lack of audible direction) and therefore headphones should be banned.
However, if sharing the road with motorised vehicles, a cyclist should be free to choose, provided the wearing of headphones was factored in to negligence in the case of an accident.
I’ve cycled with people with bluetooth speakers on their bikes, which is a much safer form of listening to music or the spoken word versus wearing closed headphones while on the move.
It’s not going to be banned,
It’s not going to be banned, and it wouldn’t matter much if it was although there would be attempts (as with helmets) to blame the victims wiped out by drivers. Driving through red lights is ‘banned’, but you have to go to extreme lengths to force The Filth to accept it as a ‘real offence’.
I use headphones on long
I use headphones on long rides when I start to flag a bit. I don’t really see what the issue is with the kind or riding I do (lanes) very few cars and not many junctions but in the city with a lot going on I don’t think I’d risk it personally. Ultimately like any law it’s not a fit all solution but designed to protect the the lowest common denominator.
I ride alot with my Varia Radar so maybe technology could be a solution to this issue/non-issue
I think these figures need to
I think these figures need to be set against a baseline question, “Do you believe cyclists should be banned?” That might give some context.
Not forgetting the question..
Not forgetting the question… are all cyclist peado, nazi’s, only good for public lynching? I think the percentage splits would be about the same.
I almost always ride with
I almost always ride with earbuds. I have a very small MPs player and I listen to books. My rides would be very boring sans this.
When it’s very windy / raining I don’t.
I can stil hear vehicles ok.
I have a helmet mirror (as we all should 😉 ) and can see what is coming better than anyone without noise creating ear things can hear what is coming.
NZ Vegan Rider wrote:
I don’t use a helmet mirror – I’ve found that my neck and my eyes still move adequately for me to look over my shoulder…
Research has shown that the
Research has shown that the type of music listened too affects driving styles, in view of this should all car drivers be in isolated compartments and forced to listen to chamber music as long as the ignition is live <sarcasm off>
Gus T wrote:
Sarcasm? Such a measure would definitely save lives, and as we all know from the H-word debates, if it saves one life, it’s worth it.
As with any survey, it
As with any survey, it depends on the question, and I can’t find the original survey to confirm or deny exactly how it was phrased, but somehow I doubt that it was anything like:
“There is no evidence that cyclists wearing ear buds have more crashes or endanger pedestrians or other road users, so should ear buds be banned for cyclists?”
Why would anyone bother asking so many people such a question anyway, given that there is no evidence of it causing problems? For an organisation supposedly dedicated to road safety, this is pretty poor stuff. Maybe I’ll ask them.
EDIT: just sent them this:
“Dear ESRA,
It has been reported that you carried out a survey to find out whether there was support for banning cyclists from wearing headphones (https://road.cc/content/news/two-thirds-road-users-back-cyclist-headphone-ban-278669) but I can’t find any reference to it. Could you please give me the link?”
When Boris was London mayor,
When Boris was London mayor, after a spate of cyclist deaths in short succession, he called out for such a ban on cyclists wearing headphones on several local radio and tv interviews about the recent homocides. And you don’t need to ask, but no, none of the victims had been wearing them. You can also guess what this encouraged among victim-blaming trolls.
eburtthebike wrote:
A classic from Yes Prime Minister:
https://youtu.be/6GSKwf4AIlI
Thank you so much for that;
Thank you so much for that; hadn’t seen it in years and it is a superb demonstration of the fixed survey.
I think the survey can be
I think the survey can be found in the methodology publication here:
https://www.esranet.eu/en/publications/
The results appear to come from the most recent Thematic Report on “Policy Measures”. I would be interested to see where this focus on this one question about cyclists and earbuds has come from, given the number of other questions and responses. Is that just Road.cc’s take home message? Or just a response to Neil Greig’s comments?
Either way, there are plenty more headline-worthy nuggets of information in both that report and others. Maybe someone should point out to Mr Grieg that similar numbers of people were also supportive of zero alcohol tolerance for drivers, intelligent speed control/warning measures in cars, and zero mobile phone use by drivers (including hands-free). I would question how a majority of people saying they are supportive of a measure (noting that many people were also supportive of many of the other proposed policy measures) translates to that one being the “ultimate” distraction as that was most definitely not what was asked.
And then maybe also suggest that he reads the “Limitations of the data” section which make it quite clear that “self-report data are vulnerable to a number of biases. […] Respondents’ opinions may be strongly dependent on whether the measure would affect them or not, on their expectations on how strong the measure will be enforced and the risk that they may be caught when not respecting the rules.”
Many thanks for digging that
Many thanks for digging that out.
Note to self; look harder next time.
EDIT; just checked and the question was:
“Do you oppose or support a legal obligation to …?” :
a.Have zero tolerance for using any type of mobile phone while driving (hand-held or hands-free) for all drivers
b.Not use headphones (or earbuds) while walking in the streets
c.Not use headphones (or earbuds) while riding a bicycle”
Conflating two actions not demonstrated to have any proven negative effects with one which has serious negative effects, implying that they are all equally as bad, is guaranteed to get a negative result for all. This is clearly biased and not reliable. Whether the bias is deliberate or accidental I don’t know, but the results are not valid.
2nd EDIT: just asked ESRA to make it clear to the media that the question was biased and that the answers are not valid.
Having ruminated on it a bit
Having ruminated on it a bit more, I don’t think the problem is really with ESRA or the report itself. Taken as a whole, with the methodology being clearly published and the caveats in the report itself, I think it’s a reasonable study. Yes it’s far from perfect, but looking at it myself nothing screams out as absolutely terrible, certainly compared with some of the other surveys and polls that get reported on.
What I really struggle with is how anyone, faced with that report, let alone the other ESRA reports, and further let alone all the other published research on road safety, thinks the take home message is that cyclists shouldn’t be wearing earbuds. The IAM press release doesn’t mention a single other source or reference, so it appears they are basing their claims solely on this report (https://www.iamroadsmart.com/media-and-policy/newsroom/news-details/2020/11/11/survey-highlights-strong-support-for-ban-on-cyclists-wearing-headphones).
And then because IAM have made that press release, that’s what makes the headlines in Road.cc, and leads Cycling UK having to pull together a rebuttal, again just focusing on that one issue.
I think Road.cc’s headline should either be:
ESRA have released a new report, with some mildly interesting findings, including [various results – mobile phones, high viz, helmets etc]. Some people have said stupid things about it.
OR
IAM Roadsmart publishes deeply biased and harmful press release based on cherry-picking data from ESRA report.
They can have my headphones
They can have my headphones when every loudspeaker, radio, mp3 player, cd player and tape player has been removed from every motor vehicle on the road along with the soundproofing which isolates vehicle drivers from any appreciation of the outside world!
Hands free phone calls are
Hands free phone calls are still very much allowed whilst driving.
I think IAM might consider that the “ultimate distraction”.
Of course social media use on a handheld smartphone REALLY is the ultimate distraction, but that is of course already illegal, shame about the enforcement.
Outrageous, prejudiced and an
Outrageous, prejudiced and an anti-cylist debate, singling out vulnerable groups and stinking ripe of VICTIM BLAMING.
And, all so dangerous callous motorists can have their own way without impediment, responsibility or penalty for their mischief maniac driving habbits.
Next they’ll be debating wether deaf or those with hearing impediment should at all be using public roads.
Is it NOT time for a worldwide debate, rather than turning a blind eye, on dangerous motorists, with their vast number of known distractions and constant excuses used in their defence, having had crashed and harmed or killed innocent people?
I always ride with earbuds so
I always ride with earbuds so I can listen to podcasts. I never feel like it’s an impairment as at low volumes I can still hear well. I guess I’ve gotten so used to it I don’t see it as an issue.
Pure, unadulterated victim
Pure, unadulterated victim-blaming.
Neil Greig should stop spouting lies and bullshit and do his job.
Or perhaps he can explain how many of the 153,000 deaths and injuries on UK roads in 2019 were caused by cyclists with headphones or earbuds.
Or the 160,000 in 2018.
And why over 1,700 people die on the roads year after year after year… which would suggest that the effort made by road safety charities, the government and so on is utterly pointless.
(the numbers of course won’t count all the crashes where an injury is not recorded or all the terrifying near misses, deliberate close passes etc that we all experience).
Mobile phones, complicated
Mobile phones, blaring car stereos, satnavs, smoking, stuffing your face with sandwiches, crisps and chocolate, hot drinks, screaming kids in the back, annoyed wife in the front, other drivers who are too slow, too fast, too aggressive…idiots crossing the road whilst checking their phones (which seems obligatory these days)……?
Nope. Cyclists wearing earphones. This is the threat. This is what Neil Greig, Policy and Research Director at the road safety charity IAM RoadSmart has come up with. I’d say cut their funding but one of the small mercies of COVID is that there’s no money left to donate to them.
I am with Duncan Dollimore on
I am with Duncan Dollimore on this – it’s inadvisable. I wouldn’t advise headphones or use them. Everything else he says is spot on as usual.
Personaly I “feel” safer
Personaly I “feel” safer being able to hear my surroundings 100% on the roads, I like music when I’m hammering around velodrome. I do go running with headphones and I seen this debate about the safety of runners too. Funny enough my stand on running with headphones was I am safer because I’m 100% reliant on what I see and will then double check before crossing road etc, not relying on hearing which can be very misleading. Cycling is different due to speed and needing to be more focused on what’s in front. I can also hear a car that sounds like its approaching from behind too fast from a distance, large vehicle, or made aware of someone ready to do a dangerous pass etc. I can then do what I feel is necessary to keep me safe. But that’s just me and I know motorcyclists who say they ride safer with earbuds and music but other road users will never know about that.
What do you do when you hear
What do you do when you hear a car approaching too fast from behind, float, brace yourself, speed up to 50?
alansmurphy wrote:
Aim to do a really well-timed bunny hop
Check my mirror to see what
Check my mirror to see what line the car is taking.
Whatever evasive manoeuvre is
Whatever evasive manoeuvre is available to you.
Sorry, but riding with cans or in ear monitors is suicide. Sure, the road safety charity is going for a pathetic easy win because it doesn’t want to aggravate the cage lobby. But when it comes to hearing while riding, it’s pragmatic self preservation. I have been warned of impending close pass stupidity a few times based on the engine noise of the vehicle behind (failing to slow for upcoming pinch point).
Luca Patrono wrote:
That’s so ridiculous as to be way past hyperbole. Suicide by definition is killing yourself. You’d have to provide evidence as to how listening to music factors in road collisions regarding cyclists, and then compare that to the chance of collisions and deaths. I’d love to see it.
I rarely use headphones when cycling, but when I have I’ve had no issue hearing what’s about me over what I’m listening to.
I never use headphones when walking, but that is at least partly due to not trusting others not to mug me from behind (paranoid, eh..). Can I infer that people who use headphones whilst walking want to be attacked/mugged/raped/murdered? Is it …. suicide?
Captain Badger wrote:
That’s so ridiculous as to be way past hyperbole. Suicide by definition is killing yourself. You’d have to provide evidence as to how listening to music factors in road collisions regarding cyclists, and then compare that to the chance of collisions and deaths. I’d love to see it.
I rarely use headphones when cycling, but when I have I’ve had no issue hearing what’s about me over what I’m listening to.
I never use headphones when walking, but that is at least partly due to not trusting others not to mug me from behind (paranoid, eh..). Can I infer that people who use headphones whilst walking want to be attacked/mugged/raped/murdered? Is it …. suicide?
— Luca Patrono
You are welcome to engage in whatever legal behaviour you want. You are welcome not to make pragmatic choices for your own safety based on the hard reality of the situation (that the roads are filled with dangerous drivers who speed, pass too close, pull out in front of you because they’ve failed to see you and do all sorts of crap that your sense of hearing can aid in warning you of) if that satisfies your sense of idealism.
But in the event that something happens to any of you defending this practice specifically because you couldn’t hear another person’s dangerous manoeuvre, I assure you, it will be no comfort to you in your hospital bed. That’s if you have the luxury of still being capable of cognition. You’ll still be crippled or dead regardless of who was right or wrong.
Personally, I don’t wish ever to have such regrets, and though I bitterly hate the scum drivers I see on a daily basis in this part of the world, I will continue to advocate taking every reasonable measure to ensure you don’t become another damn statistic.
Also, regarding your last example: taking hyperbole literally ended your entire argument. “X is suicide” in this parlance implies that X is a dangerous and potentially life-ending risk – and that’s absolutely correct. All you’ve done is take the literal meaning of “suicide” and run amok with it.
A self-defense instructor I knew explicitly stated on numerous occasions that walking around with both headphones in (head in the sand behaviour, as he’d term it) was risky behaviour outside.
Luca Patrono wrote:
Why thank you….
Read my post again
Again read the post. I was not “defending the practice” ( there is nothing that needs defending), I was attacking your victim-blaming, not to mention your conflation of suicide ( 18 deaths per day, and the biggest single killer of men under 45) with listening to music.
That sounds like an apologist’s argument as to why cycling at all is a bad idea
That is known as showing you the mirror. It kind of worked, you saw how ridiculous your principle was. Now you just need to recognise it as your principle, not mine.
No, in this context it is ridiculous hyperbole
No, that was you
A self-defense instructor I knew explicitly stated on numerous occasions that walking around with both headphones in (head in the sand behaviour, as he’d term it) was risky behaviour outside.
— Luca Patrono
Read my post again
Ultimately what happened was you got butthurt that your ridiculous, victim-blaming hyperbole was called out, and are now whining that I (apparently) took you literally….
Luca Patrono wrote:
Bollocks.
What you really mean is: I don’t feel safe wearing earbuds while riding.
And that’s fine. I am scared of climbing on tall ladders or the roof of my house but lots of people do it with ease. Should I tell them they are suicidal and deserve to die for mending my ridge tiles or guttering?
It is far better that you don’t project your own feelings and fears onto everyone else because we’re all different – what we listen to and how loud, where we ride and how fast we go, our awareness levels etc etc.
So how many deaths and injuries on our roads are caused by riders wearing earbuds?
I see another person latched
I see another person latched on to my use of the word “suicide” and failed to understand what “hyperbole” means or how broad its definition is.
As I said to the commenter above, do what you want. If you think that it’s safe to neutralize one of the two key primary senses anyone riding a bike should have active given the type of drivers we have in the UK, do what you want. At the end of the day, it’s not my ass on the line, it’s yours.
Luca Patrono wrote:
It’s a shame you didn’t write your previous comment with that thought in mind.
By using hyperbole you make it much easier for people to misinterpret your comments, which is a shame as sites like this are usually better places to exhange ideas and draw on others’ experience. If you just want to be flippant or vent your frustration then twitter is a better bet IME.
Luca Patrono wrote:
Just like not wearing a helmet?
No, just no.
In case you missed it, I
In case you missed it, I actually support your viewpoint regarding the limited effectiveness of helmets. There is a world of difference between the helmet debate and removing one of the two primary senses that are used on the road.
alansmurphy wrote:
I would probably move right
I would listen as it gets closer, assess wether it is slowing down or not, then I can move right over to the side of the road as it passes. With ear buds I would be completely unaware of the situation, could make me jump out my skin, which is a hazard, or I could get clipped by the wing mirror or worse! But thanks for the smart ass reply
Gabba wrote:
Whether it is slowing doesn’t tell you if it is passing too close so really you should either ride in the gutter continuously to avoid doubt… However, riding in the gutter is dangerous.
The point I am making is that fatalities happen due to the stupid action of drivers in almost all cases, wearing headphones or not will not change this!
Mac, see gutter point above, do you make eye contact with cars that are behind you (if not how does wearing headphones stop this) and taking a drink or stomping on the pedals is perfectly safe if the car is behaving correctly and/or you should look rather than rely on your ears!
alansmurphy wrote:
No but if the car behind is still at high revs and not slowing down that gives you an indication that this is a driver that isnt going to respect you as a road user very much, and you best look to see if the opposite lane is clear to see if he even has the option to safely overtake or not, look to see if you have a verge or gap to move into and just move aside to let them pass. Making instant assesments and judments like this are what cyclist should be doing for the reasons you highlighted, drivers doing stupid things. It isnt safe or pleasant to ride in the gutter where the road is often in a bad way on many roads so would not suggest you stay there for longer than is necessary.
You can however hear a car behind that is obviously getting impateint and waiting to pass and may risk a dangerous overtake, then you can decide wether to take the centre of the road to prevent that or just move aside. If you cannot hear than you are not aware of either scenario and you are putting yourself at higher risk.
Now I’m confused, is it a
Now I’m confused, is it a driver going too fast or an inpatient driver? Should I abandon to the gutter or go further out into the road? Just how many times on an average ride do you perform such actions would you say?
Banning headphones on cyclists WILL NOT stop drivers of motor vehicles killing and injuring cyclists – focus on what will!
Oh dear, let’s hope you not
Oh dear, let’s hope you not so easily confused when you are on the road. Good luck
Look at driver – making eye
Look at driver – making eye contact can be helpful sometimes; avoid moving out, taking a drink or standing in pedals. Move closer to kerb if possible. I think there are quite a lot of options available other than yours
Back in the ’80s I just
Back in the ’80s I just shoved a tape deck in a musette and stuck the Smiths on.
lesterama wrote:
Showing your age!
IAM Roadsmart are actually
IAM Roadsmart are actually pretty sensible when it comes to cycling so this is a comment out of step with their usual output. Here’s their cycling policy statement
https://www.iamroadsmart.com/media-and-policy/research-and-policy/policy-details/promoting-safer-cycling
It completely fails to address the way modern cars isolate you from the outside world and bombard you with distraction (another area where they campaign and research) and also doesn’t take into account other road users who can’t hear – motorcyclists and hearing impaired people.
I wear headphones on every
I wear headphones on every ride except when riding with others. I have a bar end mirror, I am always aware of my surroundings and I feel I zero impairment by listening to audiobooks or music whilst riding. I think riding defensively is far more important that whether or not you have headphones in.
In my opinion riding with
In my opinion riding with headphones in is not a good idea.
Cyclists are vulnerable road users and deliberately taking one of your senses out of commission by blocking it off seems crazy to me. I’m of the same opinion for pedestrians as well.
Keep your headphones for the gym or the indoor trainer!
> We don’t know if
> We don’t know if respondents were asked whether listening to music while driving should also be banned.
I suspect we can have an accurate guess.
This smacks of populist bull
This smacks of populist bull poop if you ask me.
I’m not aware of any highlighted issues with music listening cyclists either suffering higher crash rates, or indeed being wiped out more frequently by other road users.
Until such a time that an issue is recognised, why is this even a discussion topic?
My opinion however, is that anyone relying on hearing for their road safety is pushing their luck.
I see comments about being aware of approaching motorists, but I ask why is that important? What difference does it make? How many times have you jumped out of the way of a rearward approaching vehicle? If you change road position because you hear a car coming, I ask why does your road position need to change in the first place? If that is because you ride more outwardly when you can’t hear traffic behind, then you are probably pushing your luck more than the dude listening to euro trance.
Hmm probably ~1/20-40
Hmm probably ~1/20-40 approaching vehicles will result in me changing my road position…
Almost always moving more central to make it clear that there isn’t enough room when a vehicle is roaring up behind that will be dangerous regardless (but is far more likely to abort overtaking if I move out…)
There’s a road safety
There’s a road safety campaign you may have seen called Fatal Four. It focuses on the 4 most common causes of road deaths – inappropriate speed, using a mobile phone while driving, not wearing a seatbelt, and drink / drug driving.
Where would cycling with headphones come on the list? Would it even be in the top 40?
Tom_77 wrote:
I’m not sure any of those four are as big a killer as inattention; failing to give the complex, demanding job of driving the respect and concentration it deserves. Mind you, I’m not sure what a graphic for that would look like.
Riding with headphones is
Riding with headphones is just stupid.
They don’t hear me when I scream: ON YOUR RIGHT and ride right into my lane.
WTF? Is that the same kind of people who thinks that riding in the dark without any lights is OK?
Not really the same. One
Not really the same. One thing alerts vehicles, cyclists and pedestrians to your presence, the other doesn’t. Maybe I’m being a pedantic?
I do ride with earbuds BTW, have done for years. They keep me company as I’m not a fan of group rides. So far so good….
Well, I consider earbuds the
Well, I consider earbuds the same things as sunglasses in the dark.
Technicaly you can ride like this. But it’s just dumb.
It’s my pesonal opinion as a cyclist.
A deaf person is equivalent
A deaf person is equivalent to a partially sighted one? Interesting.
leipreachan wrote:
In your personal opinion, would you consider it to be dumb for a deaf person to cycle?
hawkinspeter wrote:
In all fairness, its perfectly right and just that a blind man can go for a walk independently.
Would you consider it wise, however, for a person with sight to put on a blindfold and go for a walk waving a white stick around?
Nigel Garrage wrote:
In your personal opinion, would you consider it to be dumb for a deaf person to cycle?
— Nigel Garrage In all fairness, its perfectly right and just that a blind man can go for a walk independently. Would you consider it wise, however, for a person with sight to put on a blindfold and go for a walk waving a white stick around?— hawkinspeter
Answer the question put to you Farage, answer the question put to you…..
Captain Badger wrote:
Lol you didn’t ask me the question in the first place, but now since you’re asking – I think deaf people are perfectly entitled and well equipped to cycle.
Do bear in mind, however, that deaf or hearing impaired people are used to being deaf and partially deaf across all aspects of their lives, and have adapted their reactions accordingly.
I’m not particularly sure what bearing it has on whether people with perfectly good hearing should deliberately shut down one of their five senses, while simultaneously distracting themselves. However, as far as I’m concerned, providing people understand the risks and potential consequences, knock yourself out (or off your bike) as far as I’m concerned!
Nigel Garrage wrote:
Well ain’ that tolerant of you…
And there is the point. “deaf people are perfectly entitled and well equipped to cycle.” Eg, it doesn’t matter that much for cycling…..
Why on earth did you try to draw an analogy to sight impairment? Trouble with analogies is they break down eventually. Or sometimes immediately…..
Nigel Garrage wrote:
In your personal opinion, would you consider it to be dumb for a deaf person to cycle?
— Nigel Garrage In all fairness, its perfectly right and just that a blind man can go for a walk independently. Would you consider it wise, however, for a person with sight to put on a blindfold and go for a walk waving a white stick around?— hawkinspeter
What a stupid post.
leipreachan wrote:
Please justify this assertion, with evidence preferably instead of handwaving arguments…..
There’s a lot of nonsense
There’s a lot of nonsense about this topic appearing on here. I don’t listen to plays/ science/ documentaries while cycling any more but I’m certainly not criticising anyone who does, or urging them to desist. These close passes occur in a moment, and the really bad drivers come past very fast, cross double white lines in very dangerous situations etc. etc.. Earphones make no difference to those.
I agree, I dissagree with the
I agree, I dissagree with the “road users” pool, I’m pretty sure they are motorists. but I agree, they should be banned
fixit wrote:
When people say ” it should be banned!” it’s frequently cos of bee under bonnet rather than actual considered benefit analysis.
If the principle is that loss or reduction of hearing significantly contributes to collisions, then those figures must be presented to demonstrate this point (I haven’t seen any, but I’ll bet that it’s negligible)
If it is demonstrated, then the principle applies across the board and not to just one group – riders, horsists, walkists, drivists, scootists.
Frankly I find it hard to believe that listening to music causes any more distraction risk for a rider than it does a driver, only with far less attached outcome severity, to others at least. Third party safety outcomes are immeasurably better with cycling than driving. As for awareness of what is around you, this must be so for drivers too – I for one roll my eyes when I can identify what crap “music” some idiot is playing, at a further distance than I can read their number plate
Rules/bans need to be applied on a strict risk/benefit basis, and applied across the board. Without that, we end up with a mishmash of illogical and conflicting legislation, resulting in inconsistent enforcement and perverse outcomes.
Drivers don’t want cyclists
Drivers don’t want cyclists to wear headphones, so the cyclist is fully aware when they lean on their horn or shout abuse
This.. I wear earbuds mainly
I wear earbuds mainly to block any abuse and horn tooting that some yobbo’s like to inflict on cyclists; I’m also prone to earache from cold air and earbuds prevent that.
You need to look at your
You need to look at your cycling if you are being constantly honked at.
Remember, if you ran into an asshole, you ran into an asshole. If you run into assholes all day, you’re the asshole.
Also, those going on about cars, completely different isolation scenario. Having a background noise in a car is not the same as pumping sound into sealed earbuds.
I never wear earbuds, a) messes with my equilibrium slightly and b) I don’t want to constantly surprised when cars come past. Each to their own though.
Rick_Rude wrote:
Isn’t it just. On the rare occasion that I listen to a podcast whilst cycling I can hear what’s going on around me. When sealed in a car it takes a siren or horn etc to cut through…..
Agree that they are annoying
Agree that they are annoying & I never wear them, but the next stage would be for cyclists to call for a ban amongst walkers/runners!
toussainthr wrote:
FTFY!
Seriously, just as distracting as music while cycling/walking/running, and probably more isolating because it’s in addition to the sound-deadening effect of the windows.
These people – and anyone who
These people – and anyone who has a similar opinion – should be ashamed of themselves.
It’s perfectly possible to cycle/run/walk/drive while listening to music or whatever and/or wearing headphones/earphones. I don’t wear anything on/in my ears when I cycle or drive, that’s my preference, but I can’t really hear anything when I cycle due to wind noise. I’m fairly sure headphones/earphones would actually help me hear and probably heighten my awareness of what’s around me.
This insidious opinion is equivalent to stating that deaf people should not be allowed to use the roads. It’s insane and you should really have a word with yourselves.
Going down hill 30, the wind
Going down hill 30, the wind seems to stifle out what I can hear. Supposedly helmets make it worse [citation required].
I’m not sure what posters make of the elderly whose hearing is impaired. Perhaps they should stick to their partially sound proofed cars
I bought one of those
I bought one of those Thousand helmets a while ago (was feeling extravagant) and tbh its not as comfortable as I’d thought it would be. But one fun fact about it: it whistles, properly whistles, when I go above a particular speed. Must be something to do with the positioning of the ventilation holes…
Cycling has some
Cycling has some disadvantages over other forms of personal transport but also many advantages. In traffic and compared to a car these advantages include greater height, a better view and not being isolated from the audio environment. Why anyone willingly gives up any of these advantages is beyond my understanding.
However…
In the abscence of any compelling evidence that wearing headphones increases risk for either the wearer or anyone else, whilst drivers particularly continue to labour under the impression that it is other road users who need to modify their behaviour and with the number of edge cases (bone conducting headphones, one earbud only, hearing aids, hearing impairement, using earplugs for any reason or just cycling round with an old fashioned ghetto blaster strapped to the bars) banning headphones whilst cycling seems both impractical and a diversion of road safety effort away from behaviours that are demonstrably responsible for death and injury.
I choose not to listen to
I choose not to listen to music whilst cycling.
I do use one earphone to listen to GPRS mapping – safer in my view than looking at a screen.
I would hope all road users would consider deaf people have a right to cycle – expecting them to drive accordingly may a too much of a hope!
I do not expect a noise-filled, sound-insulated, modern car – windows closed – to hear me.
I certainly do not expect a truck driver, bus driver, tractor driver, etc. to hear me.
I do not hear electric cars.
There are probably too many “I’s” here, so that is enough from me!
When they ban drivers from
When they ban drivers from turning on a sound system in their vehicles, then they can discuss banning cyclists and pedestrians from wearing headphones.. and if not being able to hear properly is a reason to not walk, cycle or drive, then deaf people should not be allowed perform those activities.
Lets ban radios in cars, and
Lets ban radios in cars, and all those other distracting gadgets.