Cycling with earphones, yay or nay edition: Jeremy Vine panned for falling off bike and hitting pothole while wearing earbuds; Thibaut Pint-ot in the PSG Ultras; New Cervélo for Jumbo-Visma; Pogačar on for Track TT Olympics? + more on the live blog

I wouldn't do it personally (I want every sense I have to help me avoid the inevitable idiot-piloted SUV with my name on it), but my two thoughts on the subject are:

• A cyclist with anything other than noise-cancelling headphones is probably more aware of their surroundings than a driver in a modern car - especially if it's a luxury/business saloon with loads of noise insulation. I'll have to defer to other posters because I can't currently find it, but I have in years prior seen linked articles/studies (I think it was Australian) suggesting that a cyclist listening to heavy-metal was more aware of ambient sounds than a driver was with their windows up and thier radio off.
• It is considered perfectly safe by the DVLA and the British Government for someone who's utterly stone deaf to be in sole control of a 2.5 ton  metal box capable of speeds in excess of 150mph. If that's safe, I cannot see how someone on a 10kg bike, unlikely to exceed 15mph, is anything like as dangerous as people like to suggest.

Don't forget also that while the motor vehicle has door wing mirrors (which of course you can also fit to your bike...) it also has A-pillars etc. reducing how effectively you can see.

Cyclists need to be more aware when on the road - because motor vehicles.  Unless moving at high speed (wind noise in your own ears) cycling doesn't produce much noise (you oil your chain / adjust your brakes, right?).

Motor vehicle operators should be more aware (because they pose a greater danger to others).  However they're protected relative to pedestrians / cyclists so tend to feel more secure / may be less alert.  Their vehicles produce quite a lot of noise which (unless you're driving e.g. a 2CV or  motorbike) they are insulated against - and that will also cut down other ambient noise.

BalladOfStruth wrote:

I wouldn't do it personally

So the rest of that was pointless posturing.

Adam Sutton wrote:

So the rest of that was pointless posturing.

First of all; was that necessary? As someone who complains about how people treat them here, do you not think that responses like that to someone engaging you in debate in good faith might be why?

But no, it’s not “pointless posturing”, it’s about proportionality - I can say that I wouldn’t do something myself whilst also maintaining that it doesn’t warrant the attitude it has towards it. If we’re talking about risk presented to others, then like I said - if someone driving a massive Range Rover around at 30-60mph whilst being stone deaf doesn’t meet the threshold for public outrage, then in my opinion it’s utterly mental to suggest that someone riding a 10kg bike at sub-15mph with reduced hearing somehow does. Even if I wouldn’t do it myself.

Additionally, if you’re going to start condemning certain behaviours, then you also have to ask “why” and then carry that logic forward and apply it everywhere else it’s relevant. If you’re condemning cyclists wearing headphones because you think there should be a minimum threshold for situational awareness, then you kind of have to apply that to cars too:

Should we review whether those reduced/no hearing should be allowed to drive?

Should we ban car infotainment systems/radios?

I’ve mentioned noise-cancelling headphones before, but I promise you I’m more aware of ambient sounds with my Sennhieser open-back, over-ears on than I was just sat in my old 4 Series, so should there be limits on how much sound insulation cars should be able to have? A ban on windows going all the way up?

If the answer to all those questions is "no", then it does beg the question as to what's wrong with the much less dangerous headphone-wearing cyclist.

How mature. Dunno what else I was expecting tbh...

Interesting.  I don't find helmets particularly distracting - but OTOH I haven't regularly worn one for some years now (mostly because I can avoid riding with vehicles for some parts of every journey living in North Edinburgh).

What I do find makes a difference to awareness is riding position - being more upright I find it easier to observe.  I think that's both due to where you're naturally looking (obviously in a deep tuck you're looking at the ground with your eyes in a neutral position) but also being more comfortable in general / closer to a natural walking body position.

I should say - more upright on my city hack (a "hybrid-style" - so bars about the same height as the saddle).  On the recumbent the angle of the top half of my body could make this more "looking at the sky" - although looking straight ahead still feels easier / more comfortable than doing so when in the drops on a more "sporty" upright / DF bike.

Bungle_52 wrote:

I find a helmet reduces my awareness of what's around me never mind ear phones.

Is this your helmet?

andystow wrote:

Bungle_52 wrote:

I find a helmet reduces my awareness of what's around me never mind ear phones.

Is this your helmet?

Only if he routinely rides on canal towpaths

It's like hearing better when you put your glasses on - he can smell them from further away when he's not using headphones.

brooksby wrote:

How would not wearing headphones have helped him avoid a pothole disguised under a puddle?

rain falling on deep water sounds different.

wycombewheeler wrote:

brooksby wrote:

How would not wearing headphones have helped him avoid a pothole disguised under a puddle?

rain falling on deep water sounds different.

You can hear the sound of rain on water over the sound of the motor traffic?!

hawkinspeter wrote:

Presumably, those people criticising JV for wearing earbuds are fully against people with hearing difficulties using the road as well. As long as you look around you often and check behind you before performing a maneouvre, then there's no reason that a deaf person can't be as safe as anyone else whilst cycling/driving.

I don't have a problem with blind people walking on the pavement but I would think it strange if a sighted person insisted on wearing a blindfold.

Backladder wrote:

I don't have a problem with blind people walking on the pavement but I would think it strange if a sighted person insisted on wearing a blindfold.

What about if a sighted person chose to stare at their phone screen whilst walking? Would that cause you some element of surprise?

hawkinspeter wrote:

Backladder wrote:

I don't have a problem with blind people walking on the pavement but I would think it strange if a sighted person insisted on wearing a blindfold.

What about if a sighted person chose to stare at their phone screen whilst walking? Would that cause you some element of surprise?

It doesn't surprise me as I see it all the time, I do think they are a bit daft for not paying attention to their surroundings, they can look at their phone whilst standing still or sitting down.

hawkinspeter wrote:

Presumably, those people criticising JV for wearing earbuds are fully against people with hearing difficulties using the road as well.

Sorry HP, I usually agree with you but that argument is always brought out regarding this issue and it makes no sense at all. Nobody is saying deaf people shouldn't use the road or that they can't use the road, that's not the same as saying it's a sensible idea voluntarily to choose to have one of your senses blocked off when in a highly sense-dependent environment. It's highly emotive to say oh, if you don't agree with headphone wearing then you want to stop a group of disabled people riding but it's simply not the case.

Personally I only know one deaf person (aged 91!) who rides a bike and he definitely says that he finds it a disadvantage not being able to hear the traffic around him compared to when he had his hearing (up to about ten years ago). I would tend to agree, riding in London I rely on my hearing as a secondary safety mechanism to hear what's coming up behind me, usually I can tell what type/size of vehicle it is and that helps me prepare for the possibility of a close pass, any draft issues there might be et cetera. I would not say that it's that dangerous to cycle with earphones (I did when I was younger), but in my opinion it is a little bit safer to cycle without them, and in as dangerous an environment as London traffic every tiny safety advantage I can accrue, I'm having. That doesn't mean in any way that I don't think deaf people should cycle.

But thats your opinion Rendel and there is literally no evidence to support it one way or another.   At *worst* you are still going to be more aware of your surroundings than a motorist.   Full face motorbike helmets muffle hearing quite effectively but no-ones telling them to drill holes over their ears to hear better.

If we even remotely hint that its somehow less safe for us to use earphones then it just becomes another stick for the anti-cyclists to beat us with.   On balance thats why I choose to kick back hard against it.

Respectfully, my evidence to support it is my lived experience which for me shows that I have a slightly better awareness of my environment when my hearing isn't blocked (I agree motorcycle helmets do impair hearing just as badly and I did find that a bit of an encumbrance when I rode a motorcycle). Again, this is getting emotive in the same way as claiming that anyone who says headphones might not be a good idea wants deaf people not to ride. Yes, maybe anti-cyclists will use it as a stick to beat us with, in fact they already do, that doesn't mean I'm anti-cyclist and it doesn't mean I can't share my opinion on it. I'm not saying that it should be illegal to ride with earphones, I'm just saying that in my experience it's a little bit safer to do without, that's all.

Rendel Harris wrote:

Sorry HP, I usually agree with you but that argument is always brought out regarding this issue and it makes no sense at all. Nobody is saying deaf people shouldn't use the road or that they can't use the road, that's not the same as saying it's a sensible idea voluntarily to choose to have one of your senses blocked off when in a highly sense-dependent environment. It's highly emotive to say oh, if you don't agree with headphone wearing then you want to stop a group of disabled people riding but it's simply not the case.

Personally I only know one deaf person (aged 91!) who rides a bike and he definitely says that he finds it a disadvantage not being able to hear the traffic around him compared to when he had his hearing (up to about ten years ago). I would tend to agree, riding in London I rely on my hearing as a secondary safety mechanism to hear what's coming up behind me, usually I can tell what type/size of vehicle it is and that helps me prepare for the possibility of a close pass, any draft issues there might be et cetera. I would not say that it's that dangerous to cycle with earphones (I did when I was younger), but in my opinion it is a little bit safer to cycle without them, and in as dangerous an environment as London traffic every tiny safety advantage I can accrue, I'm having. That doesn't mean in any way that I don't think deaf people should cycle.

Nobody is making that argument *yet*.

Really, I find it's the same old victim blaming attitude for people to blame cyclists for not paying attention if they choose to wear headphones, when in reality cyclists are far more aware than most road users. It seems that cyclists are the only group that are singled out for ear-covering shenanigans, even though drivers are usually totally insulated from outside sounds (and some drivers have a poor track record of even looking around them to compensate for that). Motorcyclists have their ears completely covered by full face helmets, yet the subject of their hearing is rarely addressed even though helmet intercoms are openly sold to allow bikers to talk to each other over the loud noise of the wind and their vehicles.

Hearing is way down the list of things that help safety whilst cycling. I can't think of any real life scenario I've had that my hearing enabled me to avoid a crash, whereas I've had a few close calls when I've relied on hearing and not looked sufficiently.

I can see why people would think that hearing improves safety, and I certainly find it more pleasant to cycle whilst being able to hear, but I bet there's far more crashes caused by improperly adjusted bike components compared to cycling with headphones.

I suppose what snaps my cranks is that people get very judgemental about cyclists needing highly tuned senses and perfect bike handling skills to be able to cycle in traffic. It's akin to helmet bullying ("that idiot isn't wearing a helmet") and can only lead to less people cycling and more people choosing to stay in the cocoon of a car. Instead we should recognise that cycling is safe and easy and that people with disabilities can do it even though they may be deaf, or only have one arm or one leg etc.

hawkinspeter wrote:

 

I suppose what snaps my cranks 

some people really need to let go of the Ultegra issues.

hawkinspeter wrote:

To claim that cyclists have to rely on hearing to use the roads is laughable.

Yes indeed it is. To claim that being able to hear properly is a useful secondary defence mechanism is not.

Rendel Harris wrote:

hawkinspeter wrote:

To claim that cyclists have to rely on hearing to use the roads is laughable.

Yes indeed it is. To claim that being able to hear properly is a useful secondary defence mechanism is not.

Defence against what though?

If you hear a vehicle approaching aggressively behind you, would you throw yourself to one side automatically?

I much prefer to cycle with my hearing unabated and it does improve your awareness of what's behind you, but that often means that you don't have to look behind so often (though using a handlebar end mirror makes it quicker and easier to look behind, so I think that I check behind more often due to that). When I have used headphones, I found that the biggest issue was when trying to cross a road, I couldn't hear if a vehicle was approaching from around a corner, but that just meant that I had to stop and think about the junction rather than just heading straight across because I could hear nothing approaching.

Hearing allows you to make assumptions about your surroundings that may or may not be correct, so it's recommended to use your eyes instead. That's why when you want to turn right, you should always look even if your ears tell you that there's nothing approaching.

hawkinspeter wrote:

Defence against what though?

If you hear a vehicle approaching aggressively behind you, would you throw yourself to one side automatically?

No, but hearing a vehicle driving up aggressively (or hearing that it's a bus or HGV) does alert me to look round and check what is coming if it's safe to do so and also to be ready to brace against the draft and expect the likelihood of a closer pass than with a car if it's an HGV or a bus. As I said, it's a secondary defence mechanism that alerts me to use my primary defence mechanisms.

Just remembered one instance where I reckon I might have been a goner without my hearing: cycling up Hartside Pass in Cumbria in 2018, halfway up thick cloud blew in reducing visibility to about 20 metres and I heard what was clearly a truck approaching from behind and from the engine note obviously going at high speed, in that case I did virtually throw myself over to the verge just before a Jewson lorry came thundering out of the mist at a ridiculously reckless speed for the conditions, missing me by so little that a loose strap on the tarpaulin flicked my shoulder. An extreme example and I know that most people would (I hope) have the sense to remove their earphones in such conditions, but being able to hear properly was definitely a (possibly life-saving) advantage that day.

Sadly I didn't have a camera on board, they had disappeared into the fog before I had time to get the registration plate, and lying bastards Jewson claimed that they had no records of any of their lorries in that area at the time. One of my prime motivators for investing in a camera, that incident!

Rendel Harris wrote:

No, but hearing a vehicle driving up aggressively (or hearing that it's a bus or HGV) does alert me to look round and check what is coming if it's safe to do so and also to be ready to brace against the draft and expect the likelihood of a closer pass than with a car if it's an HGV or a bus. As I said, it's a secondary defence mechanism that alerts me to use my primary defence mechanisms.

Just remembered one instance where I reckon I might have been a goner without my hearing: cycling up Hartside Pass in Cumbria in 2018, halfway up thick cloud blew in reducing visibility to about 20 metres and I heard what was clearly a truck approaching from behind and from the engine note obviously going at high speed, in that case I did virtually throw myself over to the verge just before a Jewson lorry came thundering out of the mist at a ridiculously reckless speed for the conditions, missing me by so little that a loose strap on the tarpaulin flicked my shoulder. An extreme example and I know that most people would (I hope) have the sense to remove their earphones in such conditions, but being able to hear properly was definitely a (possibly life-saving) advantage that day.

Sadly I didn't have a camera on board, they had disappeared into the fog before I had time to get the registration plate, and lying bastards Jewson claimed that they had no records of any of their lorries in that area at the time. One of my prime motivators for investing in a camera, that incident!

Glad you avoided it! That does sound(!) like your hearing helped you out that time.

I rally against the "cyclists shouldn't wear headphones because safety" attitude as most of the people saying it are non-cyclists who don't care about improving road safety in any meaningful capacity, but it's easy for them to spot a cyclist using headphones. It then gets picked up by cyclists who naturally think that hearing is a vital sense out on the roads, and so it gets repeated and amplified. It just seems overblown when arguably correct tyre pressure is far more important for cycling safely.