Cyclist finds he’s been fined €400 for riding with headphones after having money blocked in bank account, despite French police never sending a penalty notice

Boopop wrote:

Do they fine deaf people for cycling too, or are they not allowed to ride bicycles at all?

It's extraordinary how often this argument appears when talking about the use of headphones when cycling. Surely whichever side of the debate one favours it is perfectly obvious that it is nonsense to draw an equivalence between a person whose hearing is involuntarily impaired and a person voluntarily choosing to impair their hearing. Would you apply it to other senses, e.g. because people with imperfect vision are permitted to cycle would it make sense for a person with perfect vision to wear glasses that impaired that vision?

I don't think it is entirely nonsense. The pertinent question is how important is that sense to being safe on the road.

You've identified sight as being important (and rightly so) - but if one's sight is sufficiently imperfect, they are not legally permitted to drive a motor vehicle (AFAIK there is no strict test for cycling in the same way, but if you are incapable of seeing enough to cycle safely presumably that could be considered careless or dangerous cycling). 

But let's pick another sense. Some people are involuntarily anosmic. There is no restriction on their use of the road (driving/cycling etc.). Would you have a problem with someone voluntarily sticking a bung up their nose to block their sense of smell? Or anti-pollution masks which presumably dull smells to some extent? Presumably not - the sense of smell is not important to being safe on the road (even if, as a cyclist, it is occassionally useful in navigating to a coffee shop).

I would say hearing is somewhere in between. Legally, there is no restriction on deaf people cycling or driving - the powers that be have decided that the sense of hearing is not necessary to be able to use the roads sufficiently safely. But hearing is not completely irrelevant - audible cues are widely used to aid in safety (vehicles are required to have working horns; emergency vehicles have sirens; lorries have reversing sounds and increasingly audible turning warnings too). 

I absolutely agree, I don't think cycling with headphones on/being deaf is a sufficient handicap to say you should be barred from the roads, but I do think that voluntarily giving up one of your senses that can be used as a secondary protection against harm is foolishness. As a heuristic I would say that removing my hearing when cycling would impair my safety between 5% – 15%, depending on the type of road and how busy it was. Personally I'm not prepared to give up that margin just so I can listen to music, even though I love it.

You can be declared legally blind, so not permitted to drive, but legally still allowed to cycle on roads.

As for the hearing side, I was riding into a 20mph headwind for best part of an hour at the weekend, I couldn't hear f all, other than white noise, I'd have happily worn some ear plugs/headphones to cut the noise level down.

Rendel Harris wrote:

Boopop wrote:

Do they fine deaf people for cycling too, or are they not allowed to ride bicycles at all?

It's extraordinary how often this argument appears when talking about the use of headphones when cycling. Surely whichever side of the debate one favours it is perfectly obvious that it is nonsense to draw an equivalence between a person whose hearing is involuntarily impaired and a person voluntarily choosing to impair their hearing. Would you apply it to other senses, e.g. because people with imperfect vision are permitted to cycle would it make sense for a person with perfect vision to wear glasses that impaired that vision?

what about the equivalence that a cyclist with headphones can still hear more than a driver in their sealed glass box before they even turn on the music system which is perfectly legal.

wycombewheeler wrote:

what about the equivalence that a cyclist with headphones can still hear more than a driver in their sealed glass box before they even turn on the music system which is perfectly legal.

Fine, that's a valid equivalence. Trying to say that people who say it's foolish to cycle with headphones on are effectively saying that deaf people should be banned from cycling is not.

Rendel Harris wrote:

It's extraordinary how often this argument appears when talking about the use of headphones when cycling. Surely whichever side of the debate one favours it is perfectly obvious that it is nonsense to draw an equivalence between a person whose hearing is involuntarily impaired and a person voluntarily choosing to impair their hearing. Would you apply it to other senses, e.g. because people with imperfect vision are permitted to cycle would it make sense for a person with perfect vision to wear glasses that impaired that vision?

Having made a similar argument myself in the past, I disagree.

If you look at the purpose behind the law, presumably it is to do with whether it is safe (or causes danger to others) or not. If impaired hearing, whether voluntary or not, is unsafe, then why is one group allowed to ride and not the other?

I'm not convinced that impaired vision can be compared to impaired hearing as they have different roles for road danger. Vision is most often used for situations ahead and around you, whereas hearing is mainly used for situations behind you and I think it's debatable as to how much value that provides. e.g. when you hear an engine approaching, do you take evasive action when cycling in any but the most extreme cases?

(I was trying to think of a common instance when people impair their eyesight voluntarily, but can only come up with sunglasses and I don't think they really count as impairing)

This is the trouble, I'm in no way supporting the law nor am I saying that I think it should be against the law to wear headphones nor that it's fair that people should be punished for wearing headphones when drivers are allowed to have music as loud as they like, I'm just saying that voluntarily impairing your hearing with headphones is, in my view, foolish. In no way supporting the law in France or a similar law being brought in here, even though every time one says this one is accused of doing so.

In terms of the value of hearing for assessing road danger, I find it invaluable; riding in London traffic I can often assess the aggressiveness or otherwise of the driver behind me through their engine note and I can also tell what type of vehicle is coming up behind me and be ready, for example, to brace against turbulence when being passed by a bus or a lorry. It's also useful on cycle paths to be able to hear faster riders approaching and calling out/ringing bells so one can make room for them, it's highly frustrating to be stuck behind someone with earphones riding in the middle of the track and politely calling out "coming on your right mate" and getting no reaction. 

There isn't really a parallel example of people impairing their eyesight, I was just using that as a "what if?" I suppose an equivalent would be the Google Glass heads up display where, if I recall correctly, one could have maps or whatever projected into one's field of vision. Cycling with that on would seem to me pretty foolish, though judging by the reactions on here I would then be told that drivers are allowed satnav so why would I stop cyclists having it…

So you also think it's foolish for pedestrians to wear headphones..

I get earaches cycling without ear protection; my hearing is certainly impaired but not hearing normal traffic noise is a blessing, not a negative.

grOg wrote:

So you also think it's foolish for pedestrians to wear headphones..

If pedestrians were running at 15-20mph whilst sharing the road with cars I'd think it was, yes. Crikey, I thought the deaf people cycling argument was a false equivalence but at least there's an argument to be had there, well done for trumping it with something that makes no sense whatsoever.

When I ride in the rain, my vision through my water covered glasses definitely impairs my vision.

grOg wrote:

When I ride in the rain, my vision through my water covered glasses definitely impairs my vision.

I find it's often better to remove cycling glasses when it's raining hard for that reason.

Rendel Harris wrote:

It's extraordinary how often this argument appears when talking about the use of headphones when cycling. Surely whichever side of the debate one favours it is perfectly obvious that it is nonsense to draw an equivalence between a person whose hearing is involuntarily impaired and a person voluntarily choosing to impair their hearing.

I honestly don't see how it's 'nonsense'. It doesn't matter if the impairment is voluntary or not, what matters is the outcome. If cycling whilst totally deaf is considered safe, you cannot claim that cycling with headphones is dangerous without contradicting your stance on deaf cyclists. If driving a 2.5 tonne Range Rover at 70mph whilst deaf is considered safe, you cannot claim that cycling with headphones on is dangerous without contradicting your stance on deaf drivers. That’s before we even get into open-back vs closed-back headphones, or how headphones compare to car radios, or even cars just having the windows up.

I’m with you on the voluntarily giving up a sense, and I wouldn’t do it either, but when people make this argument, they aren’t suggesting that deaf people should be banned from cycling as well, they’re making an equivalence between the “safety outcome” of a deaf cyclist vs a headphone-wearing cyclist - they're making an equivalence between the Government considering one safe and the other unsafe. You cannot say that the latter is dangerous whist maintaining that the former is safe.

The equivalence/argument is perfectly valid IMO.

I have not said that deaf people cycling is dangerous, however I do believe that a deaf person is probably less safe on the roads – not to any degree that they should be banned – than a person with full hearing. This is backed up, anecdotally, by two friends of mine who have experienced severe hearing loss as they have got older and they both find that it makes cycling more difficult for them. In the same way, I would not and have not stated that people cycling with headphones is dangerous, but I do believe it takes away some element of safety. Cycling whilst totally deaf may be considered safe, is it considered as safe as cycling when being able to hear? I think for most people the answer will be no, and therefore it is foolish for people voluntarily to relinquish their ability. If people do not have the ability in the first place, that is an entirely different matter. There's a difference between being dangerous, a word which you have used but I have not, and being less safe than one could be.

Then - and I apologise if I’m being thick here - but I’m struggling to see what the problem is with the comparison being made in the initial comment. When people make this argument, they’re not suggesting that voluntary and involuntary impairments are the same, they’re asking why one “safety outcome” is considered unacceptable whilst another, identical “safety outcome” (or in the case of deaf drivers, a higher risk “safety outcome”) is considered totally fine.

I completely agree with you that cycling with impaired hearing (voluntary or involuntary) is less safe than being able to hear cars around you and that I wouldn’t personally do it, and I also do not think that cyclists with involuntary hearing impairments should be banned from the road.

However, cycling with headphones is one of those things that gets quite a significantly disproportionate amount of flak for the risk it presents, and I think that pointing out the deaf cyclists and drivers are considered safe is a perfectly reasonable way of making that point.

BalladOfStruth wrote:

Then - and I apologise if I’m being thick here - but I’m struggling to see what the problem is with the comparison being made in the initial comment. When people make this argument, they’re not suggesting that voluntary and involuntary impairments are the same, they’re asking why one “safety outcome” is considered unacceptable whilst another, identical “safety outcome” (or in the case of deaf drivers, a higher risk “safety outcome”) is considered totally fine.

You're not being thick, maybe I haven't explained my opinion clearly enough, but the reason one outcome is considered unacceptable and the other isn't is that in the case of deaf people they have no choice about not being able to hear and it would be unfair and discriminatory to ban them from the roads on bicycles because of it. In the case of people without hearing impairment, they have a choice, and in my opinion the sensible choice is not to voluntarily impair your hearing. Being told to be sensible is not discrimination.

Let's try an analogy from another scenario (and I realise it may open a can of worms so Covid/vaccine deniers, please don't bother!): during the pandemic there were some people who were genuinely unable, due to physical or psychological reasons, to wear a mask. This was generally accepted and arrangements were put in place to accommodate such people. This did not mean that it was generally accepted that people could just refuse to wear a mask because they couldn't be bothered or didn't care. There was a definite distinction between groups who had a genuine reason not to comply and those who were just being obstreperous. I would say there is the same world of difference between saying that people who can hear shouldn't ride bicycles deliberately cutting off their hearing and saying that deaf people, who have no choice in the matter, shouldn't ride.

You mention that it would be discriminatory to ban deaf cyclists/drivers from the road and yet vision impaired drivers are disallowed from driving. That's due to vision being critical to driving safely and hearing is hardly ever relevant. That's also why hearing is not mentioned in the Highway Code - it's only of any use when you cannot see other traffic.

Having a law that distinguishes between voluntary wearing of headphones (and the subsequent reduction of hearing) and having a "genuine" hearing issue don't really make any sense. What if they catch a deaf cyclist wearing headphones to keep their ears warm?

hawkinspeter wrote:

Having a law that distinguishes between voluntary wearing of headphones (and the subsequent reduction of hearing) and having a "genuine" hearing issue don't really make any sense.

Mate, where have I said anywhere on this thread that I support a law to stop people wearing headphones? I have gone out of my way to say that I would not support such a law! I have simply said that I think it is foolish for people with good hearing to impair that sense by listening to music when cycling. I don't believe that hearing is critical to cycling in the same way as vision, as I have said, I do believe that listening carefully to what's going on around you can improve safety by maybe 10/15%. That's all.

Calm down, I'm not saying that you support that law.

I do disagree with your 10-15% estimate though. Maybe 0.1%, I reckon.

hawkinspeter wrote:

I do disagree with your 10-15% estimate though. Maybe 0.1%, I reckon.

Maybe that's your experience, which is fine. For me, riding pretty much every day in central London, I rely on hearing to give me an initial warning of what's coming behind, how close it is and how fast it's going, not to mention (living close to South London's biggest A&E) to hear emergency vehicles coming. Definitely not 0.1% for me.

hawkinspeter wrote:

Having a law that distinguishes between voluntary wearing of headphones (and the subsequent reduction of hearing) and having a "genuine" hearing issue don't really make any sense.

No, making any comparison between voluntary wearing of headphones and a person with a genuine hearing issue doesn't make any sense. It is well established that those with a sensory impairment make better use of remaining senses. A blind person typically hears and smells more acutely than the rest of us, and a deaf person makes more use of his eyes than the rest of us. There is no equivalence between somebody voluntarily listening to Coldplay at 110dB to a person with permanent audio impairment. (Although the former may well become the latter)

Rendel Harris wrote:

Let's try an analogy from another scenario (and I realise it may open a can of worms so Covid/vaccine deniers, please don't bother!): during the pandemic there were some people who were genuinely unable, due to physical or psychological reasons, to wear a mask.

There's no "denier" to it. The better quality evidence available on masks - pre-pandemic, and to date - can not find a significant protective effect for community mask use against respiratory illnesses.

The evidence that finds significant protective effects is all lower quality (not RCTs, observational or mechanical).

Masks were largely pushed by idiots, for political reasons.

Bravo ! Really well articulated. 👍

It is absolutely a legitimate argument and has been sucessfully used in Australia to defeat any attempt to make headphone wearing illegal for cyclists. As for vision, you are legally required to wear glasses to drive a motor vehicle if you need to wear glasses to pass the vision test, but not if you are riding a bicycle.

Driving a car without rear-view and side-view mirrors should also be perfectly fine using your logic then.

Stop comparing cars and bicycles, they are not the same.

Yup. Woke EU nonsense.

Wait, bikes are woke, so fining people on bikes is anti-woke, but Europeans are woke, so fining Europeans on bikes is anti-woke, but the French are woke, so the French fining someone is obviously woke.