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

CatFromHue

Greenmachine wrote: »

I wouldn't drive with the stereo above a certain level in a car, but for cyclists with earphones it seems often times they have these thing at close to max speed.

How do you know?

Anyway as been mentioned already when you're cycling in traffic most of the time you can't hear the cars because of the noise off the traffic.

Kavrocks

In my opinion this topic hasn't been given a fair discussion. Instead its been rebutted with fallacious and irrelevant arguments. When this thread started I didn't know which side of the fence I lay on.

I am quite disgusted that people have been using deafness as a means to shoot this topic down. To ban somebody from cycling because they are deaf is discrimination and is very different to the topic of headphones.

Listening to something via headphones does impair the hearing of the user more so than without. I take the point that the wind does also but if you twist your head slightly to the side you (I certainly) can hear quite clearly what's around me that isn't the case with headphones. The use of headphones is also distracting. If you are listening to something educational or informative than at least part of your concentration will be on what is playing through your ears instead of on the road. If it is music you will still be slightly distracted as you will want to hear what is playing so again you won't have full concentration on the road. This is also true of music or the radio playing in cars but less so as the noise isn't being projected directly into the ears and still allows drivers (so long as the radio isn't up too high) to hear slightly what is going on around them.

The argument that having earphones doesn't cause accidents is a syllogistic fallacy. It has been made by people who say they have had accidents but haven't been wearing headphones. How do you know you wouldn't have had more if you were wearing headphones? You don't. It's also been made by people who have been very lucky and not had accidents whilst wearing them but it only takes 1! It's also been mentioned that people think not wearing them is safer.

I fail to see how wearing headphones is safer or just as safe as not wearing them? I'm still not sure they should be banned but I really think this topic should have been given a fair discussion. It seems to me that people are against this because they would lose something they want to do and not because of the actual merits of it.

niceonetom

I think the question has been treated with the derision it deserves.

mal1

It think this is the third thread in as many weeks on this topic. I think everyone knows the answer. It's not as safe to cycle while wearing earphones but you can't simply state that it's unsafe. It definitely shouldn't be illegal, it can't possibly be that big a danger.

I often wear them while cycling and listen to music. Not all the time but whenever I feel like it.

bigar

Wearing headphones can be distracting but that is also the case for pedestrians and alll road users. Not sure if it is less safe though. Every day I see pedestrians crossing the street without looking. I assume because they do not hear an engine, they believe their is no traffic behind them. Every single day I need to swerve or stop because a pedestrian does not pay attention. None of these people have headphones from what I see but often are distracted by their smartphone. Not sure if this would mean we need to ban those.

I would dare to say that when wearing headphones, people would pay better attention and are forced to look before crossing the road. This would be valid across the board for all road users.

I do not understand what headphones for cyclists would actually distract from. Cyclyst will (or should be) looking at where they are going, the same as any other road user. Even the loudest music in your ears would still not impair your sight.

RainyDay

Here's a mad idea - how about we enforce existing laws, such as the ones about drivers of motor vehicles (who kill 200+ people each year and maim thousands of others) not using their phone while driving, or not driving too fast, or not driving dangerously around cyclists, before we go making up new laws that won't be enforced?

Diarmuid

In the spirit of the OP I propose sensible solutions to your issues

Qualitymark wrote: »

blown over by a sudden gust of wind

Ban gusts of wind

Qualitymark wrote: »

driver flung door of car wide open as I passed it - I was well out, but he managed to catch a pannier,

Ban doors.
Ban panniers

Qualitymark wrote: »

doored by passenger opening car in traffic;

Ban doors. Again
Ban traffic.

Qualitymark wrote: »

slammed in the face by a pillow swung by a kid playing "break the neck of the cyclist"; swerved right and left after it hit and cycled on.

Ban pillows

Qualitymark wrote: »

spat at by angry pedestrian as I whizzed down Dame Street one windy day; combination of the wind and my speed whipped his spittle back and it covered his own face. Will always remember the look of disgusted outrage on him.

No crash? No ban required

Qualitymark wrote: »

slipped sideways on a glistening manhole cover,

Ban manholes

Kavrocks

niceonetom wrote: »

I think the question has been treated with the derision it deserves.

Just because you disagree with something or are unable to engage in a successful argument to rebut it does not mean you should resort to ridiculing it. In fact it only shows incompetence. If this topic is so ludicrous how come people have acknowledged its less safe and there haven't been any valid arguments against it?

As the OP (Deedsie) has said in a follow on post 'if banning headphones makes the roads even 1% safer' or saves 1 life is it not worth it? So much money and effort is poured into mental health all with the aim of saving at least 1 life. If 1 life is saved its seen as a success, why should our roads be any different?

I take the point that the laws in place should be enforced and maybe aren't to the standard we would all like to see but that is no reason not to implement more possible life saving laws. It only shows another issue which we should look to improve on.

07Lapierre

Why stop at headphones?...why not ban cycling?

niceonetom

niceonetom wrote: »

I think the question has been treated with FAR LESS THAN the derision it deserves.

FMP

Raam

07Lapierre wrote: »

Why stop at headphones?...why not ban cycling?

Everyone stay at home. The roads will be very safe then.

magicbastarder

there's one benefit of headphones i can think of; i was out for an hour and a half on the bike this morning, and had an earworm of the quotedevil ad jingle in my head for most of it. on friday, it was 'lola' by the kinks.
i'd have cycled into a truck to kill them off. that's the real danger.

RainyDay

Kavrocks wrote: »

I take the point that the laws in place should be enforced and maybe aren't to the standard we would all like to see but that is no reason not to implement more possible life saving laws. It only shows another issue which we should look to improve on.

Actually, that is a great reason not to implement more possible laws that won't be enforced.

tomasrojo

Kavrocks wrote: »

If this topic is so ludicrous how come people have acknowledged its less safe and there haven't been any valid arguments against it?

As the OP (Deedsie) has said in a follow on post 'if banning headphones makes the roads even 1% safer' or saves 1 life is it not worth it? So much money and effort is poured into mental health all with the aim of saving at least 1 life. If 1 life is saved its seen as a success, why should our roads be any different?

There have been what I would regard as fairly valid arguments against it. I think a common one expressed is that such a ban would be hard to enforce, and even if enforced adequately it would have little impact.

This position may be wrong (for example, perhaps such an ban would have a huge effect and it would be easy to enforce), but it's a valid argument if the assumptions are correct.

On the other point, the "even if it saves only one life" argument seems valid superficially, but it is often an emotive attempt to bypass the usual route of weighing up the benefits and costs of an initiative, or to make the sceptical or hesitant look callous.

Qualitymark

Diarmuid, you forgot "Ban passengers".

JayRoc

The_Sub wrote: »

tbh its as futile as making high viz, helmets & lights compulsory.

Lights ARE compulsory

Nino Brown

Deedsie wrote: »

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

It should be illegal to cycle wearing headphones, wearing pants, wearing anything really, cycling needs to be stomped out, it's just dangerous.

Deedsie

Some people are getting a bit worked up here. I was only trying to start a discussion on 1 individual aspect of bike safety. Of course there are bigger issues, doesn't mean the little issues should be ignored. 40% of people who visited the thread responded yes or maybe so I think the thread is valid and should not be treated with derision. Feel free to not participate if you disagree with the topic but at least attempt to make a for or against argument.

There are plenty of threads on cycling on footpaths, breaking lights, high viz, helmets etc

368100

No.. I use headphones and am very aware of what's going on around me. Sounds like you're trying to stir things OP by mentioning fines. There's no call whatsoever for that IMO.

Deedsie

368100 wrote: »

No.. I use headphones and am very aware of what's going on around me. Sounds like you're trying to stir things OP by mentioning fines. There's no call whatsoever for that IMO.

I separated the two questions, on the spot fines to see if people would support/dislike that approach to policing it if a law was introduced. The only thing I am trying to stir is a debate/discussion on bike safety on a cycling forum amongst my fellow cyclists

Qualitymark

Deedsie wrote: »

I separated the two questions, on the spot fines to see if people would support/dislike that approach to policing it if a law was introduced. The only thing I am trying to stir is a debate/discussion on bike safety on a cycling forum amongst my fellow cyclists

But no, Deedsie. Your question wasn't "Is it safe to cycle while listening to stuff on headphones", which would be the discussion you mention, but "should there be a law against it", which is a whole other discussion.

Eamonnator

Deedsie wrote: »

Some people are getting a bit worked up here. I was only trying to start a discussion on 1 individual aspect of bike safety. Of course there are bigger issues, doesn't mean the little issues should be ignored. 40% of people who visited the thread responded yes or maybe so I think the thread is valid and should not be treated with derision. Feel free to not participate if you disagree with the topic but at least attempt to make a for or against argument.

There are plenty of threads on cycling on footpaths, breaking lights, high viz, helmets etc

70% of voters responded No or Maybe.
Lies, damned lies and statistics, eh.

leeroybrown

Kavrocks wrote: »

I am quite disgusted that people have been using deafness as a means to shoot this topic down. To ban somebody from cycling because they are deaf is discrimination and is very different to the topic of headphones.

Push your indignation to one side and think about it properly. If it weren't safe for a deaf person to cycle or drive they wouldn't be allowed to do it. People with no hearing can still safely cycle so people who wear headphones can safely cycle with headphones in too. I don't wear headphones when I cycle but I don't think it should be banned because it's perfectly safe to do so as long as the cyclist takes due care to observe (which they should be doing anyway).

leeroybrown

Deedsie wrote: »

Some people are getting a bit worked up here. I was only trying to start a discussion on 1 individual aspect of bike safety. Of course there are bigger issues, doesn't mean the little issues should be ignored. 40% of people who visited the thread responded yes or maybe so I think the thread is valid and should not be treated with derision. Feel free to not participate if you disagree with the topic but at least attempt to make a for or against argument.

There are plenty of threads on cycling on footpaths, breaking lights, high viz, helmets etc

Posts cycling thread on boards and expects rational reasoned response.

macnab

Kavrocks wrote: »

I am quite disgusted that people have been using deafness as a means to shoot this topic down. To ban somebody from cycling because they are deaf is discrimination and is very different to the topic of headphones.

Just on a point of clarification, I posted: "If headphones were banned for cyclists then would you not also have to ban deaf people from cycling? or carry out random hearing tests?"

This was intended as a rhetorical question.
My point being that it would not be fair or correct to ban deaf people from cycling, as it would be unfair to ban any cyclist from wearing headphones on the grounds that it affects their ability to hear.

death1234567

unless they are sound cancelling headphones then no. I use headphones all the time when I am out on my own and I can hear the traffic etc. no problem. There's no way I'd cycle without being able to hear what was going on around me.

Chips Lovell

Nobody has presented any empirical evidence to suggest that using headphones a.) increases your risk of an accident and, if that is true, b.) that you are at much greater risk than someone listening to music in their car or out walking.

Leaving that aside and assuming that maybe it is safer not to wear headphones, there's also the issue that many people have a strange logical blind spot when it comes to safety.

There is one key point that seems to be forgotten when it comes to safety debates. And that is there are lots of safety measures that will, in general, make pretty much any activity safer. This is neatly summed up in the assertion "If X makes you 1% safer, you'd be a fool not to do it".

Too often, that simple fact will lead to calls for new laws or compulsory use of safety equipment, which is somewhat nonsensical and will lead us to having people wearing helmets while out walking or in cars and buses. What needs to be established is how big an impact in terms of safety the measure will have and whether this justifies making it mandatory.

Cycling is an easy target for such failures in logic. There is a widespread perception, even among some cyclists that it is a dangerous activity and should therefore be heavily regulated.

Stokolan

Right here's my 2cent on the headphones debate.

A few years ago I tried to wear headphones while out on a cycle in the country and It was horrible. I couldn't tell if anything was coming from behind be it car or dog (trying to chew my leg off). So I don't use them on long country cycles.

On Friday last I decided to try wear headphones for my commute home and found no issues with wearing them at all. About 30% of my commute has cycle lanes so no need to worry too much about cars coming from behind as there's loads of room for them to get past. The rest of the journey was done on the roads with traffic. As it was a Friday evening there was plenty of traffic so even with my headphones I was fully aware of what was around me. Also most cars where travelling around the same speed as me. So I wasn't getting startled by cars suddenly behind or along side me.

So on those two different scenarios I had two different experiences.

Still would not recommend using headphones while cycling tho.

Lumen

I don't normally use them but for long boring cycles on the hard shoulder of N roads (the N11 to Wexford, specifically) they help pass the time.

In that case there's really no benefit to being able to hear traffic. If a car is going to wipe me out by pulling onto the shoulder at 100kph without looking I may as well shuffle off this mortal coil singing to myself.

Beasty

Personally I would never wear them, but my hearing is pretty crap a lot of the time anyway, and I feel much more comfortable with having my senses focussed on my cycling rather than anything else. Should they be banned in some way - not in my view - it's back to the old "personal choice" issue, and the only person who may be increasing their risk in any material sense is likely to be the cyclist