Boris Johnson says he'd back ban on cyclists wearing earphones

"For a start, the French statistics relate to the area covered by the Prefecture of Police of Paris, which covers 762 square kilometres; Greater London, for comparison, covers 1,572 square kilometres."

Sorry Simon, that's way too simplistic a comparison - I can't comment on Paris, but the outlying suburbs of Greater London don't magically disappear into nothingness, just more of the same. "Greater London" is purely an arbitrary identification of area.

Far more relevant to the argument is how the fatalities in London are distributed - it's already known that one black spot is Bow roundabout, and there's another area somewhere in C London (I forget where) where fatalities are predominantly women cyclists.

I'm a driver, a motorbike rider and a cyclist. When I ride the motorbike, I have to wear noise-attenuating earplugs for the safety of my hearing, despite being inside a big and muffling helmet - all motorcyclists do (actually, quite a few wear ear-bud-type earphones or use in-helmet speakers to pass music and satnav instructions). Are motorcyclists going to be similarly banned?

As it happens, I ride my (pedal-powered) bicycle without anything in my ears and have learnt to use my hearing to build a picture of what's going on around me - that is used in lieu of looking, occasionally. When on the motorbike, I simply replace the lost sense (hearing) with extra visual checks. Why is this not viable for cyclists when it is for motorcyclists?

Whatever the rights and wrongs of headphone use (I don't as I want to hear what's going on around me and my earphones are a snug fit that ) the timing of this outburst is appalling and smacks of shameless deflection.

It reminds me of the classic "blame the referee" tactic employed by football managers to deflect criticism of their team.

In this case Johnson appears to be trying to avoid any serious discussion about the real issues by throwing this particular stone into the pond.

I just went off to check news reports from about a month ago to ensure that I actually understood which authorities in London had been asked by a Coroners Court to formally respond on concerns about cyclists deaths and a quick read of the opening page of the Coroners Report

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/shared/bsp/hi/pdfs/22_10_13_cycling.pdf

shows that it was addressed to Boris Johnson - if this is part of his response then he should be ashamed - it is a deliberate distraction from the real issues - yes cyclists need to concentrate 110% but why? because other road users in steel boxes don't concentrate or don't care - so if I'm riding my bike and I can hear a vehicle behind what am I expected to do to make the situation safer? Pull in to left, doff my helmet and pull at the lapel of my hi viz?

I'm sure others will say it but my experience of riding mostly (but not always) without headphones is that I rarely hear vehicles approaching fast from behind that then pass too close - I can hear aggressive drivers in slower moving traffic when I claim the lane or the road is simply too narrow for them to pass safely but the problem isn't me and I can't instantly redesign the road layout or reset some ones alarm clock to 5 minutes earlier

utter rubbish.

You'd save more lives banning motorists from wearing ear plugs because they're nattering on the phone and not paying proper attention to the roads.

Ban all phone conversations whilst vehicle is not parked.

EU headphone volume limit = 85dB. HGV or bus at 10ft = 90dB. Busy street noise is usually between 70 and 80dB and remains pretty much constant.

Roughly, decibel level drops 6dB with doubling of distance. So a bus 40ft away is possibly inaudible above street noise and at 20ft only marginally louder than the surrounding noise.

And being able to hear a vehicle emerging from a side street or approaching behind you? Sound travels in relatively straight lines, so the noise of the vehicle is reflected off objects either side and is projected according to the angle and distance of reflection. So basically into the space opposite the exit and then back off that at lower levels to a wider arc. That's assuming regular, single source sound and constant reflective surfaces. Good luck finding that in a streetscape while in motion.

So if you switch on the EU limiter and knock it down a couple of notches on generic iPod headphone, you should be able to hear vehicles at 40ft. Oh did I mention Honda say that their 2013 Accord is so well soundproofed that it reduces ambient noise down to 50-odd dB. So basically, you've got naff all chance of hearing that car emerging at speed from a sidestreet. But you can't avoid addressing politic points with vehicular soundproofing now can you?

Bollocks to this. I wear open-backed headphones so I can still hear road noise, but I really think it's a non-issue anyway, even if they completely blocked out the sound. If someone doesn't look properly and runs you over, the chances that you will be able to leap out the way with some noise-induced spider-sense are miniscule. (Unless you are actually Spiderman, in which case thanks for your crime-fighting work, and good luck in court trying to get access to your kids).

I think more of an issue is that most cars I see (especially private hire) have at least two screens on the dashboard (usually sat-nav plus a phone in a holder on the windscreen) to distract them. WTF is going on with that?

Excellent, well-balanced reporting Simon.

I sometimes wear in-ear headphones when cycling. With the radio on quietly, listening to TMS for example, it's no problem at all to be fully aware of your surroundings. Vehicular traffic is actually really noisy __ much, much louder than the level I have my headphones at.

The wind blowing across your ears is also incredibly noisy too. I only became aware of just how utterly deafening a crosswind is by wearing headphones because it drowns them out entirely.

If we are going to ban headphones then we also need to ban cycling in conditions in which cyclists could be affected by crosswinds too. They affect your ability to hear what's around you much more.

I know Boris isn't making much sense on this issue (so far) but overall I can't think of anyone in recent history who has done more to promote cycling generally and especially cycling in London. He cycles himself (properly too, without the ministerial Jag behind him), introduced the 'Boris bike' scheme and is genuinely investing significant amounts in cycling infrastructure. Unfortunately we are having to come from 40 years behind that of other European countries and also overcome a largely hostile public attitude.

tbh he's right! I'd never cycle with headphones in as you just can't be fully aware of your surroundings like that

Im kind of lost for words, and I really don't mean to offend, but I have not heard so much rubbish in such a short article in so long. Headphones may be an issue but there is no evidence yet, but what about the hearing impaired, shall we assume they are no longer allowed on a bike?

Further more, you can light up a cyclist like a xmas tree, have them followed by helicopters with spot lights for all I care, the fact of the matter is the cyclist that has been hit was not seen, I dont believe for one moment that an of the recent deaths were deliberate. Drivers are looking ahead, not to the side, and once they have passed a cyclist they are no longer a concern, even on the dullest day you cant tell me that cant see a cyclist on the road in front of a vehicle, the problem may well just be that drivers are not looking for them, or in the case of the left turn incidents, once they are out of direct vision, no longer a concern?

I remember when I did my HGV licence many many years ago, we were taught to always look in the mirrors when taking a corner....they used to say "one eye looking back, one eye looking forward" this wasn't for cycle safety, but to make sure the corner was cleared and the HGV didn't mount a curb, but it would serve the same purpose.

As I have said many times before, there are asshole drivers and asshole cyclists out there, but they are the minority, drivers need to be more aware of us squishy people on the road, and we need to make sure that we make ourself safe, only this morning on the way to work a guy on a bike crossed in front of me without looking, but assumed that putting his hand out as he cut in front was going to save him from being squished...basic road safety just does not exist here....from both parties....I have lost count of the times someone has just cut in front of me with out indicating, or even when indicating, not looking and assuming that because they have indicated, they have the right of way

Rant over, im starting to get really angry, the solutions are simple, as are the people that have to power to solve the problem

Not that I would wear headphones on the bike - but surely the point is that cycling should be safe enough for people to use them if they want to?

Look at Holland, how removing road furniture, street markings and signs and repaving entire streets has created an equal space for pedestrians cyclists and motor vehicles

Its the Mayor's job to deliver a safe environment rather than just legislating cyclists into adapting to a dangerous one. Doing that solves nothing in the long term and perpetuates the status quo.

Ban all drivers from inner London who have mobile phone convictions, now we're talking!

"I see a lot of people using handhelds, using BlackBerry devices and not paying proper attention to the road.”
I assume he's talking about all traffic here - I see more drivers plugged into Iphone-earphone music that cyclists (outside London that is). A rising issue, as more music is held on mp3 players and older cars don't have line-ins.
And don't assume that I can't hear traffic when using my mp3 while riding - how does anyone know what volume it's at? At normal levels (for me) I can hear more background noise than when in a car with the windows up and the radio on and enough to feel as aware as I need to be. There's a time and place for it though and it's just an area for common sense and perspective.

Your ears are your 'third eye' on a bike. They've saved me a number of times. Removing that 'sense' and replacing it with something that is potentially disctracting (ie music, radio); that's just crazy! Mark Cavendish was asked in an interview whether he'd wear headphones and he replied, emphatically, never. Helmets, high-viz and reflectives can be debated 'till the cows come home', but wearing headphones is in with using lights. I wouldn't wear headphones to walk or jog round streets for the same reasons.

That's it, Boris. Go for a non-issue instead of the real problems. Idiot.

Unless you're the sort of numpty who weaves around the road and switches lanes without using YOUR EYES, there is no problem *whatsoever* with listening to music. The only thing they could possibly make a difference to is if a) someone is about to drive straight into you from behind and b) you are some uber-skilled bike ninja who could immediately levitate above said vehicle were you to hear it.

I commute with one earphone in and my anecdotal evidence would be that I still manage to pay more attention than most to the world around me.

Doubtless wearing earphones (plural or singular) should be considered in the event of an accident, but if that's the case, then so should the car driver's choice of listening material, whether the SatNav was on and how many children were in the car.

Operation of any road going machine, motorised or not, 2 wheels or more, needs your full attention and has numerous things that might impinge on that; some within your control, many more that aren't.

I'm going to continue to use a single earpiece to listen to Radio 4 while I ride, if you don't like that, well, chacun a son gout, as they say in the safer streets of Paris.

Victim blaming again.

Does Boris have an opinion on the call by Charity Brake for a ban on Hands Free mobiles in vehicles?

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-24982173

This is something that would actually improve road safety. Bans on headphones won't.

First of all, is there any evidence of accidents as a result of cyclists wearing headphones? I certainly don't see how it would be problematic if I was riding to work in the coming weeks with Test Match Special playing into one ear, while someone in a car on the same road could have 1000 watts pumping out into their little metal box.

The last couple of weeks seem to have resulted in all sorts of ideas being floated around. Most seem to be aimed at the victims of these accidents, rather than ways of making it safer for them. For example, on LBC this morning they were apparently talking about whether it should be made compulsory for cyclists to wear HiViz. If someone cannot see another individual in broad daylight (cyclist or pedestrian) they shouldn't be on the road. As for nighttime, HiViz is a waste of time and a black outfit with plenty of reflective material would be far more visible.

If there is clear cut statistical evidence to back any ideas I would 100% back it, but most of the ideas being banded around have no scientific basis. For example, the majority of the recent deaths seem to have resulted from the poor cyclists being crushed by buses or lorries. Having a helmet isn't going to save you from being crushed to death. In fact, for any of the recent deaths where no helmet was worn was the lack of a helmet a contributory factor in the death?

Assigning blame to cyclist again, kicking the victim when they are down is a low act of Boris, he should do something rather then brainstorming shitty idea's that can't be controlled. Bringing down the speed of cars and trucks in town, enforce bike lights for visibility, these are the only two things that can be done short term.

He'll be asking "them" to pay road tax next.

Whilst wearing headphones does seem a little silly to me, is there ANY evidence whatsoever thats its a serious contributor to the KSI's we've had??

I think he's realised he can no longer win over the cyclists, and instead is simply appealing to the anti-cyclist voters instead.

Personally I agree with the importance of having all senses fired up and unhindered. Like the drunk who gets plastered and then acts surprised when he finds himself in A&E we do need to do all we can to protect ourselves.

However, the main point is the roads should be safe enough to ride along without the thought even crossing your mind that the 2 tonne lump of metal box racing up behind you operated by a distracted and angry bee is about to shunt you from behind and possibly kill you.

Reality is hearing something like that rapidly approaching doesn't always mean you can avoid it, and if you do have to dive out of the way the real issue remains of not whether you heard it or not but of why you're having to dive out of its way in the first place? This is the point MPs persist in ignoring, instead finding it politically easier to brush the deaths aside.

It always returns to the simple matter of what people choose to do once they're roaming about in their battle boxes and what government will do to force them to play nicely.

To date of course with the obscene history of victim blaming and excuses that government intervention and care really amounts to less than zero.

This government though do claim to be serious about cycling. Bit like sending a clown in a rubber dinghy to aid a typhoon stricken country and insisting you consider it to be a serious relief effort contribution.

Cameron...we see through you you know?

I agree that there are far too many cyclists (particularly kids) who wear headphones / earphones while cycling, and that it's dangerous.

However I sometimes have one earphone in for satnav in a new area - why should that be illegal?

Also, regarding HGVs, all I have to say is Paris. No reason why they can ban HGVs in rush hour and we can't.

Wearing headphones whilst cycling is simply retarded...I can't see the kind of people that would wear them whilst riding wouldn't take any notice of it being introduced to the highway code.

Some sense, some balls.
Headphones have no place and no need. They do hinder awareness. To my mind they should be considered like lights. if you are wearing them and have an accident they have to be considered. As lights are compulsory during darkness. Its a law. I think that as with cars , cycle lights should be mandatory during poor conditions.
There is no reason not to. If cyclists want to be considered equal to cars then they should lay by the rules.
Talking about others, eg pedestrians, is just diverting attention from an issue that you personally don't like. Its a different issue. I agree that it may be valid but its a different issue.
Good point about a rush once the HGV ban is over but maybe you city dwellers have to live with that.
Everyone just has to accept that lorries, cars and bikes are just not good bed fellows.