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

07Lapierre

Lusk_Doyle wrote: »

What about men in women's swimwear?

"Whats seen cannot be un-seen!"

Beasty

Lusk_Doyle wrote: »

What about men in women's swimwear?

Just have to head over to Lusk for that ....

Keep_Her_Lit

PeadarCo wrote: »

Relying exclusively on your ears when cycling will lead to an accident.

People will argue about all sorts of stuff on d'interwebs ... but I really don't see how anyone could disagree with this point.

rich.d.berry

Only if it's illegal for drivers to use their radio/CD player/Ipod etc.

chinacup

So far OP you've highlighted the point about headphones possibly inhibiting awareness to a slightly more dangerous level.

But to go as far as to say it should be illegal we've established you would have to overcome the following obstacles:

- Enforcing it (tinted windows were made illegal a couple years back to my knowledge but I still see them all the time?)

- Proving it causes more accidents than any other minor things that can affect awareness such as glasses, a woolly hat etc. An example of a woman crossing the luas tracks, not on a bike, doesn't suffice. (:

For now I think taking the below factors into consideration as a cyclist/driver would be more beneficial to the safety conscious, for a start:

http://www.traceysolicitors.ie/blog/cyclists-in-dublin-facts-figures-on-accidents/

PeadarCo

Keep_Her_Lit wrote: »

People will argue about all sorts of stuff on d'interwebs ... but I really don't see how anyone could disagree with this point.

Well I hope no one would.

My point was that hearing from a cycling point of view isn't as important as most people might expect. Hence anything that reduces your ability to hear other road users like headphones,wind,headbands etc wouldn't have any major impact on your safetly.

The point I made was bit extreme I appreciate but while the op's heart is in right place its one the most stupid cycle safety laws I've ever heard of. If your going to ban headphones you may as well try ban the wind. Wind can cause greater noise issues than headphones.

Lusk_Doyle

PeadarCo wrote: »

Well I hope no one would.

My point was that hearing from a cycling point of view isn't as important as most people might expect. Hence anything that reduces your ability to hear other road users like headphones,wind,headbands etc wouldn't have any major impact on your safetly.

The point I made was bit extreme I appreciate but while the op's heart is in right place its one the most stupid cycle safety laws I've ever heard of. If your going to ban headphones you may as well try ban the wind. Wind can cause greater noise issues than headphones.

Don't forget car doors too. Terrible for blocking sound!

Raam

If we ban ear phones on bikes then I will start to hear all the creaks, clunks and cracks on my bike. Please don't do this.

Deedsie

Raam wrote: »

If we ban ear phones on bikes then I will start to hear all the creaks, clunks and cracks on my bike. Please don't do this.

Well 60% +/- 10% think it's a nonsense idea. I wouldn't worry about it too much. I am still very much entrenched in my views. Wearing headphones/earphones while cycling isn't a sensible thing to do.

Raam

Deedsie wrote: »

Well 60% +/- 10% think it's a nonsense idea. I wouldn't worry about it too much. I am still very much entrenched in my views. Wearing headphones/earphones while cycling isn't a sensible thing to do.

For people with bad situational awareness it is not sensible. For those with good situational awareness the results are different.

Deedsie

Raam wrote: »

For people with bad situational awareness it is not sensible. For those with good situational awareness the results are different.

I'm sure similar comments were made to defend using mobile phones when driving.

I don't trust other people's situational awareness when it comes to my safety. It's not a sensible thing to do

Raam

Deedsie wrote: »

I'm sure similar comments were made to defend using mobile phones when driving.

I don't trust other people's situational awareness when it comes to my safety. It's not a sensible thing to do

Mobile phones: the problem with those is taking your eyes off the road. Different.

Your second statement: a cyclist listening to The Venga Boys will probably never cause you a problem.

Kinet1c

Deedsie wrote: »

I'm sure similar comments were made to defend using mobile phones when driving.

You're really clutching at stuff now. There's zero similarity between holding your phone up to your ear whilst trying to steer/change gears with 1 hand then having both hands on the handlebars of a bike and earphones in.

As per another poster, I also listen to podcasts sometimes when out cycling. Volume is no different to having a conversation with a car passenger or a mobile phone call on hands free. I've driven cars, vans, motorbikes and I also cycle. Does that mean I'm not going to have an accident? No. I do however know that cycling up the arse of a van with no rear windows is probably a bad thing, as is continuing on my path as a car turns right whilst leaving enough space for 1 car or 1 bike... car > bike so why take the risk? Being smart on the road with how I interact with other road users, regardless of earphones/headphones.

Road user education is what it's about, not just in relation to the laws but encouraging some common sense.

Deedsie

Kinet1c wrote: »

You're really clutching at stuff now. There's zero similarity between holding your phone up to your ear whilst trying to steer/change gears with 1 hand then having both hands on the handlebars of a bike and earphones in.

As per another poster, I also listen to podcasts sometimes when out cycling. Volume is no different to having a conversation with a car passenger or a mobile phone call on hands free. I've driven cars, vans, motorbikes and I also cycle. Does that mean I'm not going to have an accident? No. I do however know that cycling up the arse of a van with no rear windows is probably a bad thing, as is continuing on my path as a car turns right whilst leaving enough space for 1 car or 1 bike... car > bike so why take the risk? Being smart on the road with how I interact with other road users, regardless of earphones/headphones.

Road user education is what it's about, not just in relation to the laws but encouraging some common sense.

"Similar comments" I said, not similar actions...

Qualitymark

This piece in the Indo today

http://www.independent.ie/life/motoring/car-news/no-child-should-be-responsible-for-their-own-safety-parents-must-act-30538573.html

refers to the 14 children under 16 killed on the roads this year, and asks parents to make sure their children wear helmets and high-viz.

Anyone know how many of the children killed were cycling? I seem to remember hearing of kids killed in cars?

Deedsie

Qualitymark wrote: »

This piece in the Indo today

http://www.independent.ie/life/motoring/car-news/no-child-should-be-responsible-for-their-own-safety-parents-must-act-30538573.html

refers to the 14 children under 16 killed on the roads this year, and asks parents to make sure their children wear helmets and high-viz.

Anyone know how many of the children killed were cycling? I seem to remember hearing of kids killed in cars?

"In the first eight months, 14 children under 16 have died. Last year, seven children lost their lives. The number so far this year is already double the total for 2013. Seven were pedestrians and seven were car passengers"

I presume the hi-Vis vests and jackets were aimed at walking kids in addition to cycling kids? It makes sense to recommend the use of bike lights and helmets in an article about child safety on the roads?

People being killed is not the only measure of safety, how many non fatal accidents happen to cyclists each year that are never reported?

magicbastarder

Qualitymark wrote: »

This piece in the Indo today

http://www.independent.ie/life/motoring/car-news/no-child-should-be-responsible-for-their-own-safety-parents-must-act-30538573.html

interesting link placement - in the middle of the article, there's a link to the indo review of the new volvo SUV.

magicbastarder

the article also fails to mention (and it's hard to quantify in fairness) that of the 44% killed who were pedestrians, how many of these were killed by an already out-of-control car.

07Lapierre

To be fair I think the article is good advise for Parents. I just think its a pity it doesn't remind ALL road users to watch out (that's to WATCH OUT, NOT LISTEN out) for Pedestrians on the roads..

LiveIsLife

Brian? wrote: »

I was wearing a thermo headband over my ears today. Couldn't hear a thing but the wind while descending. Should there be an on the spot fine for warm ears?

People keep bringing this back to reduced hearing, but is it not the case that music or audio would reduce attention?

ThisRegard

chinacup wrote: »

- Enforcing it (tinted windows were made illegal a couple years back to my knowledge but I still see them all the time?)

You still see them because they were never made illegal, the level of tint is just restricted.

petethedrummer

ThisRegard wrote: »

You still see them because they were never made illegal, the level of tint is just restricted.

Can glass be tinted Hi-Viz colour?

Qualitymark

07Lapierre wrote: »

To be fair I think the article is good advise for Parents. I just think its a pity it doesn't remind ALL road users to watch out (that's to WATCH OUT, NOT LISTEN out) for Pedestrians on the roads..

It probably is good advice to parents, who may or may not need it; however, considering that 2/3 of children killed in crashes weren't belted in, perhaps the driving parents are the ones the safety experts should be talking to!

Deedsie

Qualitymark wrote: »

It probably is good advice to parents, who may or may not need it; however, considering that 2/3 of children killed in crashes weren't belted in, perhaps the driving parents are the ones the safety experts should be talking to!

Perhaps both driving and non driving parents should be advised on road safety....

PeadarCo

LiveIsLife wrote: »

People keep bringing this back to reduced hearing, but is it not the case that music or audio would reduce attention?

Earphones on there own won't. I've been cycling earphones in with full attention on the road around me because traffic, fast windy decent etc demanded that I do so. Same as when your in a car does the a radio effect attention on the road? Whats important is that I know whats around me. My eyes are far more beneficial for that and earphones don't impair it.

For things like earphones radio's its passive communication. The driver/cyclist doesn't have to engage with it. That's the issue with a mobile phone conversations.

Should we ban passengers in cars talking to driver, ban cyclists talking to each other both are more distracting than any radio/earphone because by and large a response is expected in that situation and take attention off the road.

On that question what do you consider OP so dangerous about earphones versus the noise of the wind/radio's in cars/ talking to other cyclists in groups/talking to car passengers etc. Because while I consider the proposed law absolutely stupid a 1/3 of the people in the poll agree with you.

tomasrojo

07Lapierre wrote: »

To be fair I think the article is good advise for Parents.

http://www.cyclehelmets.org/1155.html

This probably belongs in the Helmet Definitive Thread, but there isn't very strong evidence that helmets make a meaningful difference to road fatalities among children (though they might have merit in less severe falls, as those falls wouldn't really show up in the stats very reliably).

There isn't a lot of evidence that hiviz makes a huge difference in urban areas either, though I don't think there are any papers that look at children specifically.

And, as said, none of the fatalities referred to in that article were cyclists.

Still, hiviz is cheap, and re-engineering roads and neighbourhoods is not, so ... hiviz promotion it is!

tomasrojo

I also find it interesting that the RSA revamped the old Safe Cross Code advert, but omitted to actually show a child crossing the road. I presume they just couldn't bring themselves to show such a transgressive act, and showed the children doing a dance routine instead.

Is the Indo article anonymous? "Our RSA Expert"? "It's disappointing that none of these interventions are compulsory, but that's a discussion for another day." They want to make hiviz mandatory for child pedestrians? (I think the RSA's stated intention a few years back to seek mandatory helmets for cyclists under 14 was rebuffed by the current government, and this final sentence is a reference to that.)

Deedsie

PeadarCo wrote: »

Earphones on there own won't. I've been cycling earphones in with full attention on the road around me because traffic, fast windy decent etc demanded that I do so. Same as when your in a car does the a radio effect attention on the road? Whats important is that I know whats around me. My eyes are far more beneficial for that and earphones don't impair it.

For things like earphones radio's its passive communication. The driver/cyclist doesn't have to engage with it. That's the issue with a mobile phone conversations.

Should we ban passengers in cars talking to driver, ban cyclists talking to each other both are more distracting than any radio/earphone because by and large a response is expected in that situation and take attention off the road.

On that question what do you consider OP so dangerous about earphones versus the noise of the wind/radio's in cars/ talking to other cyclists in groups/talking to car passengers etc. Because while I consider the proposed law absolutely stupid a 1/3 of the people in the poll agree with you.

1/3 of people in the cycling forum... Imagine if this poll was in a more general public forum... I think non cyclists thoughts on cyclists wearing heaphones/earphones would be that they are taking a serious risk and shouldn't be doing it.

You can call my suggestion stupid all you want (your opinion & 231 others :-)) but so is cycling with earphones (my opinion). It's inconsiderate of other road users safety and your own. I truly hope those that do it continue to be as lucky and never have any accidents or incidents...

PeadarCo

Deedsie wrote: »

1/3 of people in the cycling forum... Imagine if this poll was in a more general public forum... I think non cyclists thoughts on cyclists wearing heaphones/earphones would be that they are taking a serious risk and shouldn't be doing it.

You can call my suggestion stupid all you want (your opinion & 231 others :-)) but so is cycling with earphones (my opinion). It's inconsiderate of other road users safety and your own. I truly hope those that do it continue to be as lucky and never have any accidents or incidents...

You've missed the point of the question was asking.You say you consider it dangerous and I'm asking why.

If you where to take the examples in my post. Why should it be illegal to cycle with headphones and it not be for a car passenger to talk to a driver/two cyclists out together side by side chatting.

In both those examples it requires a person to deviate their attention from the road to communicate with another person. Earphones don't. If you've done any amount of cycling you should be aware of the issue of wind noise at higher speeds is far louder than any ear/headphones. Other people here have given other examples.

You can't propose to make something illegal just because you think its dangerous. There needs to be concrete reasons.

PeadarCo

Deedsie wrote: »

I truly hope those that do it continue to be as lucky and never have any accidents or incidents...

I've been cycling on the road with a club the guts of 10 years at this stage. In any of the accidents I've had I haven't actually been wearing earphones and the wearing/not wearing of them wouldn't of made any difference.(I only wear them if I'm cycling for 1hr+ on my own, need them for sanity and motivation).