Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Hi all! We have been experiencing an issue on site where threads have been missing the latest postings. The platform host Vanilla are working on this issue. A workaround that has been used by some is to navigate back from 1 to 10+ pages to re-sync the thread and this will then show the latest posts. Thanks, Mike.
Hi there,
There is an issue with role permissions that is being worked on at the moment.
If you are having trouble with access or permissions on regional forums please post here to get access: https://www.boards.ie/discussion/2058365403/you-do-not-have-permission-for-that#latest

Should it be illegal to cycle while wearing headphones? On the spot fine?

1235»

Comments

  • #202
    MadDog76
    Closed Accounts Posts: 5,162 ✭✭✭MadDog76


    PeadarCo wrote: »
    Well why not. If you've ever gone very fast on a bike say 50km + you'll be perfectly aware of all the noise generated and as you said its all about reducing risks. All we need to do is extend the met eireann weather notices to the likely noise impact of the wind and cyclists just like they do for boats. Add speed limits to bikes and make it illegal to cycle once Met Eireann declares a certain notice. And there you go the wind banned.

    And why shouldn't cyclists have speed limits anyway??? So yes I agree with you .......


  • #203
    PeadarCo
    Registered Users Posts: 1,969 ✭✭✭PeadarCo


    MadDog76 wrote: »
    And why shouldn't cyclists have speed limits anyway??? So yes I agree with you .......

    4 reasons

    1- Cyclists don't have to have speedometers. Very hard to judge the difference between 29km/hr and say 33km/hr

    2- Even for strong cyclist is actually quite hard to break them bar the 30km/hr in Dublin City Centre. It takes effort to hit 50km/hr and outside racing there are very few places that can be done in built up area's with cars, traffic lights etc.

    3-While speed limits aren't exact a cyclist can still be convicted under the general dangerous driving/cycling rules.

    4- Crashing at high speed on a bike is quite painful. Self preservation generally restricts high speed cycling to where it is safe to do so.


  • #204
    LiveIsLife
    Closed Accounts Posts: 152 ✭✭LiveIsLife


    PeadarCo wrote: »
    Well why not. If you've ever gone very fast on a bike say 50km + you'll be perfectly aware of all the noise generated and as you said its all about reducing risks. All we need to do is extend the met eireann weather notices to the likely noise impact of the wind and cyclists just like they do for boats. Add speed limits to bikes and make it illegal to cycle once Met Eireann declares a certain notice. And there you go the wind banned.

    The wind argument is nonsense, it's part of the environment your cycling in and hearing it is part of the sensory awareness. Plugging in earphones is reducing and distracting one of your important senses when cycling


  • #205
    PeadarCo
    Registered Users Posts: 1,969 ✭✭✭PeadarCo


    LiveIsLife wrote: »
    Wind is nonsense, it's part of the environment your cycling in and hearing it is part of the sensory awareness. Plugging in earphones is reducing and distracting one of your important senses when cycling

    Nobody here has disputed that earphones reduce the effectiveness of a persons hearing. What I and others are disputing is the impact of that reduction. If your going to make earphones illegal its up to who ever is proposing it to show the reduction is so material on safety that it warrants making it a criminal offence.

    Just because it reduces your hearing doesn't mean it has a material impact on a persons safety. If you think it does please supply the relevant research and statistics.


    The point about the wind is that it reduces a persons ability to hear what's going on around them. Its an environmental factor that can have a far greater impact on a persons hearing than any set of turned up earphones. If the argument that anything that reduces hearing and or attention on the road should be made illegal, its natural that that ban should extend to things like radio, wind, car passengers etc.


  • #206
    MadDog76
    Closed Accounts Posts: 5,162 ✭✭✭MadDog76


    PeadarCo wrote: »
    4 reasons

    1- Cyclists don't have to have speedometers. Very hard to judge the difference between 29km/hr and say 33km/hr

    2- Even for strong cyclist is actually quite hard to break them bar the 30km/hr in Dublin City Centre. It takes effort to hit 50km/hr and outside racing there are very few places that can be done in built up area's with cars, traffic lights etc.

    3-While speed limits aren't exact a cyclist can still be convicted under the general dangerous driving/cycling rules.

    4- Crashing at high speed on a bike is quite painful. Self preservation generally restricts high speed cycling to where it is safe to do so.

    So maybe cyclists should have to have speedometers .........

    And, like motorists, cyclists will have different speed limits in different parts of the city, country etc.

    Crashing at high speed in a car can be quite fatal yet self preservation doesn't stop idiots in cars driving at excessively high speeds ......... still illegal to speed though and it is enforced when observed by the Guards


  • #207
    Lumen
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 31,140 ✭✭✭✭Lumen


    MadDog76 wrote: »
    So maybe cyclists should have to have speedometers .........

    And, like motorists, cyclists will have different speed limits in different parts of the city, country etc.

    Crashing at high speed in a car can be quite fatal yet self preservation doesn't stop idiots in cars driving at excessively high speeds ......... still illegal to speed though and it is enforced when observed by the Guards
    The purpose of speed limits for motor vehicles is not to stop drivers from killing themselves, it's to stop (or rather, reduce the likelihood of) them killing other people.

    Motor vehicles kill scores of passengers, other drivers, cyclists, and pedestrians each year. Bicycles do not because they're much slower, much lighter, carry no passengers, have better visibility, are narrower (and therefore more difficult to collide with) and present a more or less symmetrical risk to the cyclist as they do to the pedestrian. So for all sorts of reasons "death by cyclist" is just not a major threat facing humanity.

    Aside from bicycle speed limits being practically unenforceable they would also have no effect on the third parties which speed limits are designed to protect.


  • #208
    LiveIsLife
    Closed Accounts Posts: 152 ✭✭LiveIsLife


    PeadarCo wrote: »
    Nobody here has disputed that earphones reduce the effectiveness of a persons hearing. What I and others are disputing is the impact of that reduction. If your going to make earphones illegal its up to who ever is proposing it to show the reduction is so material on safety that it warrants making it a criminal offence.

    Just because it reduces your hearing doesn't mean it has a material impact on a persons safety. If you think it does please supply the relevant research and statistics.


    The point about the wind is that it reduces a persons ability to hear what's going on around them. Its an environmental factor that can have a far greater impact on a persons hearing than any set of turned up earphones. If the argument that anything that reduces hearing and or attention on the road should be made illegal, its natural that that ban should extend to things like radio, wind, car passengers etc.
    http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1369847811000684

    There hasn't been much research done on it, but that doesn't prove or disprove anything

    The argument isn't anything that reduces attention. If that logic was used then talking on a mobile while driving a car would never have been.


  • #209
    07Lapierre
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 8,255 ✭✭✭07Lapierre


    We'll I for one have seen the error of my ways. From now on I'm going to drive to work, with the car windows open and no radio on! I mean, if it saves just one life?


  • #210
    PeadarCo
    Registered Users Posts: 1,969 ✭✭✭PeadarCo


    LiveIsLife wrote: »
    http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1369847811000684

    There hasn't been much research done on it, but that doesn't prove or disprove anything

    The argument isn't anything that reduces attention. If that logic was used then talking on a mobile while driving a car would never have been.

    Listening to earphones is the same as listening to a radio in a car. Its one way communication, talking on a phone is 2 way.

    Given the amount of research that's be done on road safety over the last few the fact nothing much as been done on earphones says a lot. If really so dangerous as some people here believe work would have been done.


  • Advertisement
  • #211
    PeadarCo
    Registered Users Posts: 1,969 ✭✭✭PeadarCo


    LiveIsLife wrote: »
    http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1369847811000684

    Reading through that study its says nothing about the danger of earphones. It says they reduce hearing perception something I agree with.

    What it doesn't give any indication of is if that decrease substantially increases the chances of an accident and to such a degree that it should be a criminal offence. Which is what the op is essentially asking.


  • #212
    CramCycle
    Moderators, Sports Moderators Posts: 25,172 Mod ✭✭✭✭CramCycle


    el tel wrote: »
    When you say headphones, do you mean these guys?

    hercules-dj-pro-m10001-headphones72s717frsp.jpg

    If so, well I would agree that there is a strong arguement that such yokes would impair your perception.

    But I don't think I've ever witnessed anyone earing these on a bike so I can't see what the major problem is.
    .
    I see lads on the grand canal path wearing them all the time, luckily they are already distracted with texting/face booking I doubt they make a difference.
    Deedsie wrote: »

    There is ALMOST a 360 degree view around a car from inside. Break lights, indicators (when used) allow other road users to know when they are going to make a lane change etc.

    There is a 360 degree view for cyclists provided no neck problems, cars on the other hand generally have alot less due to blind spots. There was a diagram doing the rounds before, pillars in the car, restricted view of mirrors and poor car design leave slew of blind spots. The pillars in my brothers Quasqai (wrong spelling) reduce my viewing field while stationary by almost 25%. How it got through safety design tests is beyond me. I'd estimate it at 140/180 at the front, including life saver/shoulder checks (which Irish drivers never seem to bother with it is probably about 100/180 out the back. On my bike it takes me less than a second to get a full 360 view of all going on around me.


  • #213
    chinacup
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 539 ✭✭✭chinacup


    MadDog76 wrote: »
    The wearing of earphones, whilst cycling, not only impairs hearing, it's also a distraction to the cyclist .......... common sense would tell anybody that if you are a vulnerable person (which every cyclist is!) engaging in a risky activity then you should be hyper aware of your surroundings and do everything possible to remain as safe as possible.

    If this thread was in a general forum (as opposed to a cycling forum) the results of the poll and the opinions posted would definitely favour not using earphones whilst cycling ......... it doesn't surprise me that most of the cyclists on here are stupidly saying "wearing earphones are grand, not a problem" etc. as I see cyclists every day taking equally as stupid chances on the road ......... we are always being told to "watch out for our most vulnerable road users", I think it's time our most vulnerable road users started looking out for themselves .......... not wearing earphones would be a good place to start!!!

    But for me listening to music helps me relax, I'm not sure being in an anxious state is good for cycling either. I know you're saying it helps with alertness but for me, listening to music helps me stay calm and make good road decisions. I'm also less likely to rely just on my ears and use my eyes a lot more. Earphones aren't wise all the time but as long as you've a bit of cop on I don't think they affect yuur attention to the extent people are suggesting.

    Also your saying its about time we look out for ourselves. That is such a bold statement to make! The fact is majority of cyclist accidents are not the fault of the cyclists. I think there's a point to be made for using headphones wisely but some of the claims here are going overboard now!


  • #214
    Saipanne
    Closed Accounts Posts: 4,882 ✭✭✭Saipanne


    Cyclists should be allowed to do whatever they feel like.


  • #215
    MadDog76
    Closed Accounts Posts: 5,162 ✭✭✭MadDog76


    Lumen wrote: »
    The purpose of speed limits for motor vehicles is not to stop drivers from killing themselves, it's to stop (or rather, reduce the likelihood of) them killing other people.

    Motor vehicles kill scores of passengers, other drivers, cyclists, and pedestrians each year. Bicycles do not because they're much slower, much lighter, carry no passengers, have better visibility, are narrower (and therefore more difficult to collide with) and present a more or less symmetrical risk to the cyclist as they do to the pedestrian. So for all sorts of reasons "death by cyclist" is just not a major threat facing humanity.

    Aside from bicycle speed limits being practically unenforceable they would also have no effect on the third parties which speed limits are designed to protect.

    Are you serious???? Speed limits are not designed to stop drivers from killing themselves????:confused:
    So if I'm driving in my car alone on an empty road with no chance of coming into contact with anybody else whatsoever I can drive at whatever speed I want to and I'm not actually breaking the law ........ ??? :D

    By the way pedestrians are not the same as cyclists .......... unless where you come from pedestrians walk along the open road, weaving in and out moving cars, going through red lights, changing lanes with no warning and all whilst blasting loud music into their ear-holes!! :D:D:D


  • #216
    MadDog76
    Closed Accounts Posts: 5,162 ✭✭✭MadDog76


    chinacup wrote: »
    But for me listening to music helps me relax, I'm not sure being in an anxious state is good for cycling either. I know you're saying it helps with alertness but for me, listening to music helps me stay calm and make good road decisions. I'm also less likely to rely just on my ears and use my eyes a lot more. Earphones aren't wise all the time but as long as you've a bit of cop on I don't think they affect yuur attention to the extent people are suggesting.

    Also your saying its about time we look out for ourselves. That is such a bold statement to make! The fact is majority of cyclist accidents are not the fault of the cyclists. I think there's a point to be made for using headphones wisely but some of the claims here are going overboard now!

    You know what saves the lives of under-cautious cyclists??? Over-cautious motorists .......... you're welcome :p


  • Advertisement
  • #217
    CramCycle
    Moderators, Sports Moderators Posts: 25,172 Mod ✭✭✭✭CramCycle


    MOD VOICE: and I think we are done


This discussion has been closed.
Advertisement