TfL said to have approached researchers over headphones and cyclist safety

Matt
Don't get me wrong. I'm not advocating compulsion, however for most cycle journeys <60 minutes I struggle to believe that people are so hooked on headphones that they can't do without them. The general opinion in this forum is that they DO restrict awareness.
As for the TfL issues, it's going to be many years, if ever, before there's an acceptable level of safe provision for cyclists. In the mean time the first line of defence is our own expertise and practice.......It's the only thing we've got real control over.
In my opinion, the single most effective measure that won't cost a fortune is legislation implementing "Presumed Liability". That will certainly encourage caution from the biggest artic on the road to the bike on the pavement.
Regards
Peter

Jimmy Ray Will wrote:

Headphones is an argument that forced me to find my log in to this site for the first time in years.

My take... as with all things, headphone use is entirely safe, if common sense is used.

By that I mean, if you can't hear whats behind you, you have to look before making a maneuver. As long as you do that, then where is the harm?

When listening to whats coming up behind you without phone, before you could pick up danger it is too late to react anyway.

Now someones comment about turning your head to look behind you is dangerous because it distracts you from things happening in front of you... now that's just daft, absolutely daft.

1. you simply can't rely purely on hearing to judge what's happening behind... there is a reason motorcyclists call it the 'life saver' look. By the way, motorcyclists are all but deaf to their environment when riding, but seem to do fine.

2. by making that statement, you are condemning common driving methods used by every driver on the road today...

The main point I want to make is that I don't understand the argument that with headphones on you are suddenly totally deaf. I sometimes do, sometimes don't, however when I am phoned up I can still hear cars coming from behind. To block that sound out, you'd need the volume up so loud your ears bleed.

I am sure there are idiots that do that, as I am sure that there are idiots that don't look behind them when cycling... however it is the idiot that is the problem, not the headphones.

No.

And, yes.

You should look behind you.

However, the relative closing speed of motorised traffic is such that, unlike when on a motorcycle or in a car, you need to be constantly making "life saver" checks, if you are to maintain the same awareness as you would without listening.

Let's take the motorcycle example. If you see a hazard, the chances are that you will have made a visual check both in your mirrors and over your shoulder in the fairly recent past. So another "life saver" at a fair distance from that hazard will give you plenty of time to make a safe manouevre around the hazard. Also, bear in mind that potholes and stones are less of a hazard for a motorcyclist and it is very unlikely that another vehicle (except maybe another motorcycle) will be overtaking you (close by). I'm not talking about overtaking other vehicles here, just avoiding hazards: potholes, car doors, etc.

In the same situation on a bicycle, it IS likely that you will be being overtaken and the closing speed of the traffic behind will be much faster. So, you are much more reliant on your ears to fill in the necessary gaps between your "life savers".

So far from being daft, I believe having both sight and hearing available to you is very important for your safety.

Having said all of that I totally agree with those comments on here that this debate is somewhat of a red herring, in that it is a diversionary Boris-ism, ie there's a cock-up in the system and the easiest way to tackle it is to propose an idea that is far removed from the real issue of infrastructure and driver / cyclist training.

spatuluk wrote:

I wear ear bud headphones while cycling, and it doesn't affect my perception or ability to hear traffic, but I don't have them turned up very loud. I also don't like listening to loud music in the car, because it's disorientating and makes me feel too removed from reality. Kinda like the feeling you get when you cover one eye and lose depth perception.

So, from my perspective, the problem isn't the headphones - it's the volume of the headphones.

The issue affects pedestrians, too, and you can see the proof from pedestrians who aren't even listening to ipods. When crossing a road, they use their ears first, and look second. If they don't hear anything, they'll often step into the road without even bothering to look, which is a bit of a bugger if there's a bicycle coming (or an electric car, a few years into the future). With headphones in, people have a higher chance of not looking.

So, on one hand you say they have no effect. Then, on the other they are a danger.

Hmmmm

mikem22 wrote:

Aren't we, as cyclists, in danger of being a little childish about this with all the 'Nevermind us, look what they are doing' attitude?

I'm a cyclist and a driver. I never wear earphones on my bike, whether that's on a commute, a weekend ride, a sportive or on the track. I don't have headphones on in the car either but I do play music using the car stereo.

The reason I wouldn't wear headphones is that they remove an important sense and you end up effectively handing over a large proportion of responsibility for your own safety to other road users. Given how much we like to moan about what other road users do, I don't see why any cyclist would want to do this.

Personally, I don't see any benefit to my dying thought, as I lay under some vehicle, being 'Well, I think you'll find that I was in the right there' when I could have taken some steps to improve my safety and mitigate the risks of being hit.

With regard to the radio debate, the simple fact is that in a car I am less exposed to sound and less reliant on my ears. Apart from having a sound insulation box around me I also have the engine and road noise dulling this sense. Because of the effect of the enclosed nature, It is also harder to gauge the direction a sound is coming from. I do though have three mirrors pointing behind me meaning that I will be using visual cues much more than sound.

The radio, at a normal volume, still allows you to pick up on important sounds that earphones filter out.

And, also, in a car or other motorised vehicle, you are not victim of high relative closing speeds from behind. As you also say, you probably don't have mirrors on your bike either. So, you would have to look behind you frequently, distracting yourself from avoiding all the other hazards presenting themselves in front of you.

mikem22 wrote:

Aren't we, as cyclists, in danger of being a little childish about this with all the 'Nevermind us, look what they are doing' attitude?

I'm a cyclist and a driver. I never wear earphones on my bike, whether that's on a commute, a weekend ride, a sportive or on the track. I don't have headphones on in the car either but I do play music using the car stereo.

I would say that makes you a mite hypocritical, to be honest.

For one thing, choosing to drive a car _at all_ (with or without the stereo) involves choosing to create a risk (and for others, not just yourself). Why is your choice to create that risk acceptable but the (alleged) risk of having headphones while cycling not?
And the very fact that the car blocks out external noise is surely the point? Why is it OK for cars to do that but not for headphones to do it?
(I grant there's possibly something in the point about mirrors compensating for lack of aural awareness)

I'm consistent, myself. I don't wear headphones while cycling (on the road, anyway) and I don't drive a car. You seem to be OK with engaging in one kind of risky behaviour while reproaching others for doing the other.

mikem22 wrote:

The reason I wouldn't wear headphones is that they remove an important sense and you end up effectively handing over a large proportion of responsibility for your own safety to other road users.

Well, to a significant degree the threat to your safety is _created_ by those 'other road users', so why should they _not_ take much of the responsibility?

I find pedestrians crossing the road with their backs to the traffic and headphones in to be very annoying - but I still regard it as my responsibility to avoid them, as its me who is creating the threat.

I dunno, to be honest, as to exactly how far to take this, but it irks me slightly, the notion that cyclists' safety should automatically be entirely their responsibility, when its motorists that create the danger.

mikem22 wrote:

Personally, I don't see any benefit to my dying thought, as I lay under some vehicle, being 'Well, I think you'll find that I was in the right there' when I could have taken some steps to improve my safety and mitigate the risks of being hit.

Which is an excellent argument for each individual to decide to take what precautions they think appropriate - indeed, its why I don't wear headphones on the road myself. Its not an argument for making those precautions legally obligatory, is it? (I can't tell if that's what you are arguing for or not, mind you).

For a long time the argument you give here was my reason for not cycling at all. Why is it OK for one to cycle at all, if the most important thing is to take full responsibility for avoiding all possible risks from other people's carelessness?

Its somewhat arbitrary as to how far to take your argument here, and to decide at what point one HAS to expect others to exercise some basic care for your safety. Otherwise you would never leave your house.

mikem22 wrote:

With regard to the radio debate, the simple fact is that in a car I am less exposed to sound and less reliant on my ears. Apart from having a sound insulation box around me I also have the engine and road noise dulling this sense. Because of the effect of the enclosed nature, It is also harder to gauge the direction a sound is coming from. I do though have three mirrors pointing behind me meaning that I will be using visual cues much more than sound.

The radio, at a normal volume, still allows you to pick up on important sounds that earphones filter out.

Though it could perhaps distract you, mentally.

Really the only point of yours here I think has merit is the one about mirrors, but I'm not sure if that isn't cancelled out by the fact that a cyclist has much greater all-round visibility.

edit - oh yeah, I also see merit in the point someone made that cyclists are more likely to have someone coming up at speed behind them. Maybe that's a significant difference.

On the whole I think there's still a double-standard here. Why should cyclists be expected to have complete aural awareness while motorists are not?

FluffyKittenofTindalos wrote:

For one thing, choosing to drive a car _at all_ (with or without the stereo) involves choosing to create a risk (and for others, not just yourself). Why is your choice to create that risk acceptable but the (alleged) risk of having headphones while cycling not?

By that argument, all modes of transport creates risk for someone else, including bikes as these create risk for pedestrians. In fact, extrapolating that to it's logical conclusion, only walking everywhere is the only safe form of getting from A to B. Also, I only find wearing headphone personally unacceptable and find it difficult to understand why any cyclist would want to. If cyclists want to increase risk to themselves by wearing them then they are free to.. though bear in mind, using your own argument, this is also increasing risk for pedestrians too?

FluffyKittenofTindalos wrote:

And the very fact that the car blocks out external noise is surely the point? Why is it OK for cars to do that but not for headphones to do it?

You seem to be OK with engaging in one kind of risky behaviour while reproaching others for doing the other.

My point here was that comparatively, sound is more important to the relative safety of a cyclist (and pedestrian) than it is to a driver of a car because of the make up of the vehicles.. one being a fast, semi-sound proof box with mirrors and the other being a slow open vehicle with a more cumbersome mechanism for checking what is happening behind.

I'm reproaching nobody, I merely stated that I can't understand why anyone would want to remove or reduce one sense when using the road. I don't use headphones on a bike just as I wouldn't drive out from home with a misted or iced windows. Nor would I drive a car without mirrors. I don't understand why anyone would want to do any of those things as they all increase risk.

FluffyKittenofTindalos wrote:

Well, to a significant degree the threat to your safety is _created_ by those 'other road users', so why should they _not_ take much of the responsibility?

I firmly believe that we are all better off doing as much as possible to ensure our own and other road users safety, regardless of the mode of transport. For most it is not an Us and Them argument as many cyclists are also drivers and therefore. Every journey, regardless of the mode, we should be doing all we can to minimise risk to ourselves and others?

In an ideal world we could all travel around in our own little bubble relying on everyone else avoiding us. But the fact is that there are bad road users out there or ones who make a single mistake.. or even ones that have some kind of sudden medical emergency at the wheel and if they are near me at the time I would want all of the appropriate senses to my mode of transport (whether I'm in the car, on foot or on a bike) serving me as best as they could.

FluffyKittenofTindalos wrote:

Its not an argument for making those precautions legally obligatory, is it? (I can't tell if that's what you are arguing for or not, mind you).

I would never ask anyone I saw on a cycle to remove headphones. It's up to them, After over 25 years of cycling, I just don't understand it, that's all. And if you read all of the threads above there is not one single good argument for riding with them in as far as I can see. The respondents who do are generally saying 'Yeah I do but what about the crazy stuff drivers do'. Neither can we point to deaf people. I can tell you, by the nature of their handicap they DO feel more at risk riding bikes in traffic.

I don't think that this should end up as law, I would hate that it did in fact. My point was more that we just can't point at the car drivers screaming 'What about them?' whenever some debate about safe cycling is started.

FluffyKittenofTindalos wrote:

For a long time the argument you give here was my reason for not cycling at all. Why is it OK for one to cycle at all, if the most important thing is to take full responsibility for avoiding all possible risks from other people's carelessness?

I'm glad you took to your bike and I'm also happy that you don't wear your headphones as I believe this is one small measure that makes cycling the roads safer for you. I don't think it is ONLY cyclists responsibility for avoiding risk. I think EVERYONE on the highways should take equal responsibility for each other.

Unfortunately, until laws that go some way to sharing this responsibility out (such as Strict Liability) are introduced t, it is a sad fact that cyclists have a greater vested interest in their own safety as they are the ones that come off worse in any incident and it is the driver that usually walks away without any action against them. Yes it is maddening but I'd rather by maddened and alive than dead.

mikem22 wrote:

My point was more that we just can't point at the car drivers screaming 'What about them?' whenever some debate about safe cycling is started.

It's not a debate about safe cycling. It's a debate about whether or not a new restriction should be imposed on cyclists.

The stated objective is to improve some aspect of cycling safety. The underlying motivation is, for at least a significant proportion of the population, to just to impose yet more onerous restrictions on our free use of the roads.

If, as in the case of head injuries and hearing awareness, a measure of dubious value is proposed then it's a useful tactic to point out that the same restriction should be imposed on other road users who might also benefit (or not).

Head injuries remain high in the car driving population. It staggers me that people drive them without 5-point HANS racing harnesses and crash helmets to supplement the inadequate air-bags and crumplezones. Similarly, as we all like common sense and our own experience, it seems obvious to me that microphones should be fitted on the outside of cars with the ambient sounds piped in to loudspeakers (dolby surround naturally) to make drivers aware of their external environment.

Or not.