- News
- Reviews
- Bikes
- Accessories
- Accessories - misc
- Computer mounts
- Bags
- Bar ends
- Bike bags & cases
- Bottle cages
- Bottles
- Cameras
- Car racks
- Child seats
- Computers
- Glasses
- GPS units
- Helmets
- Lights - front
- Lights - rear
- Lights - sets
- Locks
- Mirrors
- Mudguards
- Racks
- Pumps & CO2 inflators
- Puncture kits
- Reflectives
- Smart watches
- Stands and racks
- Trailers
- Clothing
- Components
- Bar tape & grips
- Bottom brackets
- Brake & gear cables
- Brake & STI levers
- Brake pads & spares
- Brakes
- Cassettes & freewheels
- Chains
- Chainsets & chainrings
- Derailleurs - front
- Derailleurs - rear
- Forks
- Gear levers & shifters
- Groupsets
- Handlebars & extensions
- Headsets
- Hubs
- Inner tubes
- Pedals
- Quick releases & skewers
- Saddles
- Seatposts
- Stems
- Wheels
- Tyres
- Health, fitness and nutrition
- Tools and workshop
- Miscellaneous
- Tubeless valves
- Buyers Guides
- Features
- Forum
- Recommends
- Podcast
news
Cyclist with earbuds - copyright Simon MacMichaelTwo thirds of road users say cyclists should be banned from using headphones, claims survey
More than two thirds of road users in the UK support a ban on cyclists wearing headphones while riding their bikes, according to a new survey conducted among 35,000 road users across 32 countries worldwide – with a British road safety charity describing them as “the ultimate distraction.”
The E-Survey of Road Users’ Attitudes (ESRA), whose partners include governments and national road safety associations, found that across the sample as a whole, 65.8 per cent of respondents backed such a ban, including 68.2 per cent of respondents in the UK, wiith around 1,000 people quizzed in each country. We don't know if respondents were asked whether listening to music while driving should also be banned.
In Europe, support for a headphones ban was highest in Spain, at nearly 80 per cent, and lowest in Finland, at 36 per cent. Countries with the strongest cycling cultures such as the Netherlands and Denmark saw a small minority of road users in favour of a ban.
Globally, more women than men were in favour of a ban while by age, 18-24 year olds were most opposed to such a measure, with 53.5 per cent of that age group worldwide expressing support, but only 44.1 per cent in Europe.
Neil Greig, Policy and Research Director at the road safety charity IAM RoadSmart, commented: “It’s clear that the majority of road users are very concerned about distracted cyclists wearing headphones or earbuds while riding. These findings were consistent right across the world in this substantial survey.
“Being plugged in to either headphones or earbuds is the ultimate distraction, as it completely shuts you off to your surroundings, creating a potential road safety risk to yourself, pedestrians and other road users around you. This is even more critical with the popularity and increasing prevalence of noise-cancelling equipment.”
He added: “There are plans to update the Highway Code being discussed as we speak, so now is a great time to have an informed debate about the best way for cyclists to avoid potentially fatal distractions.”
In fact the consultation to planned changes to the Highway Code closed last month, with no reference in the Department for Transport’s proposed new wording made to banning headphones and similar audio equipment for cyclists or other road users for that matter.
The Highway Code does, however, say that both motorists and cyclists should avoid distractions, with listening to music at excessive volume, for example, potentially falling into that category.
The government has however consistently rejected calls for cycling while using headphones to be banned – including one in November 2013 from Boris Johnson, then Mayor of London, after the deaths of six riders in the capital although he did not cite any evidence of audio devices being a factor in those fatalities.
> Government “will not legislate” for Mayor of London’s cyclist headphone ban
In 2018, researchers in the Netherlands published research which found that wearing headphones while riding “negatively affects perception of sounds crucial for safe cycling.”
> Dutch study: Using headphones “Negatively affects perception of sounds crucial for safe cycling”
The authors of the study suggested that cyclists listening to music or talking on their phone in a country with less cycling infrastructure than the Netherlands might be more at risk.
Commenting on that study, Duncan Dollimore of Cycling UK said at the time: “Our view is that wearing headphones is inadvisable, particularly if listening at high volumes or with headphones that completely shut out sound, but the idea that headphone wearing cyclists are any more of a problem than headphone wearing pedestrians is not borne out by any evidence we have seen.”
Whether or not to wear headphones while riding is of course a matter of personal choice, with some taking the view that listening to music can distract from what is happening around them.
Others, however, insist that they are able to maintain awareness of their surroundings while wearing headphones, and that banning them would be similar to saying that deaf people are not allowed to ride bikes.
Simon joined road.cc as news editor in 2009 and is now the site’s community editor, acting as a link between the team producing the content and our readers. A law and languages graduate, published translator and former retail analyst, he has reported on issues as diverse as cycling-related court cases, anti-doping investigations, the latest developments in the bike industry and the sport’s biggest races. Now back in London full-time after 15 years living in Oxford and Cambridge, he loves cycling along the Thames but misses having his former riding buddy, Elodie the miniature schnauzer, in the basket in front of him.
Latest Comments
- belugabob 2 sec ago
As a boomer (excuse me for my date of birth) I resent the generalisation as much as I resent "bloody cyclists!"
- Spangly Shiny 39 min 15 sec ago
I had the pleasure of owning two of the featured builders here, in my history. When I joined the Army in 1971, I took with me my curly Hetchins:...
- Username 1 hour 44 min ago
Could Siobhán paint it red and noone would notice it?
- Simon E 2 hours 29 sec ago
Feel so sorry for the family, likely to be in temporary accommodation for at least 6 months.
- E6toSE3 12 hours 18 min ago
I've posted before about being 69, lifelong cyclist as my main transport, much of it in, through, under, over London and how it's bicycles that...
- Spangly Shiny 16 hours 33 min ago
To paraphrase Field of Dreams, "Build it right and they will come: and use it!"
- Rendel Harris 18 hours 54 min ago
And a Happy Christmas to you, road.cc staff!
- Rendel Harris 19 hours 42 min ago
The odds of not being able to find a single pedestrian - just one, note, "any pedestrian" - in an area containing more than about ten of them who...
- bikeman01 21 hours 21 min ago
I love how wannabe racer reviewers talk about fork flex under braking like their tyres are made of glue. I find traction gives long before fork flex.
- hawkinspeter 22 hours 29 min ago
They don't make them like they used to
Add new comment
97 comments
They can have my headphones when every loudspeaker, radio, mp3 player, cd player and tape player has been removed from every motor vehicle on the road along with the soundproofing which isolates vehicle drivers from any appreciation of the outside world!
Hands free phone calls are still very much allowed whilst driving.
I think IAM might consider that the "ultimate distraction".
Of course social media use on a handheld smartphone REALLY is the ultimate distraction, but that is of course already illegal, shame about the enforcement.
As with any survey, it depends on the question, and I can't find the original survey to confirm or deny exactly how it was phrased, but somehow I doubt that it was anything like:
"There is no evidence that cyclists wearing ear buds have more crashes or endanger pedestrians or other road users, so should ear buds be banned for cyclists?"
Why would anyone bother asking so many people such a question anyway, given that there is no evidence of it causing problems? For an organisation supposedly dedicated to road safety, this is pretty poor stuff. Maybe I'll ask them.
EDIT: just sent them this:
"Dear ESRA,
It has been reported that you carried out a survey to find out whether there was support for banning cyclists from wearing headphones (https://road.cc/content/news/two-thirds-road-users-back-cyclist-headphon...) but I can't find any reference to it. Could you please give me the link?"
When Boris was London mayor, after a spate of cyclist deaths in short succession, he called out for such a ban on cyclists wearing headphones on several local radio and tv interviews about the recent homocides. And you don't need to ask, but no, none of the victims had been wearing them. You can also guess what this encouraged among victim-blaming trolls.
A classic from Yes Prime Minister:
https://youtu.be/6GSKwf4AIlI
Thank you so much for that; hadn't seen it in years and it is a superb demonstration of the fixed survey.
I think the survey can be found in the methodology publication here:
https://www.esranet.eu/en/publications/
The results appear to come from the most recent Thematic Report on "Policy Measures". I would be interested to see where this focus on this one question about cyclists and earbuds has come from, given the number of other questions and responses. Is that just Road.cc's take home message? Or just a response to Neil Greig's comments?
Either way, there are plenty more headline-worthy nuggets of information in both that report and others. Maybe someone should point out to Mr Grieg that similar numbers of people were also supportive of zero alcohol tolerance for drivers, intelligent speed control/warning measures in cars, and zero mobile phone use by drivers (including hands-free). I would question how a majority of people saying they are supportive of a measure (noting that many people were also supportive of many of the other proposed policy measures) translates to that one being the "ultimate" distraction as that was most definitely not what was asked.
And then maybe also suggest that he reads the "Limitations of the data" section which make it quite clear that "self-report data are vulnerable to a number of biases. [...] Respondents’ opinions may be strongly dependent on whether the measure would affect them or not, on their expectations on how strong the measure will be enforced and the risk that they may be caught when not respecting the rules."
Many thanks for digging that out.
Note to self; look harder next time.
EDIT; just checked and the question was:
"Do you oppose or support a legal obligation to ...?” :
a.Have zero tolerance for using any type of mobile phone while driving (hand-held or hands-free) for all drivers
b.Not use headphones (or earbuds) while walking in the streets
c.Not use headphones (or earbuds) while riding a bicycle"
Conflating two actions not demonstrated to have any proven negative effects with one which has serious negative effects, implying that they are all equally as bad, is guaranteed to get a negative result for all. This is clearly biased and not reliable. Whether the bias is deliberate or accidental I don't know, but the results are not valid.
2nd EDIT: just asked ESRA to make it clear to the media that the question was biased and that the answers are not valid.
Having ruminated on it a bit more, I don't think the problem is really with ESRA or the report itself. Taken as a whole, with the methodology being clearly published and the caveats in the report itself, I think it's a reasonable study. Yes it's far from perfect, but looking at it myself nothing screams out as absolutely terrible, certainly compared with some of the other surveys and polls that get reported on.
What I really struggle with is how anyone, faced with that report, let alone the other ESRA reports, and further let alone all the other published research on road safety, thinks the take home message is that cyclists shouldn't be wearing earbuds. The IAM press release doesn't mention a single other source or reference, so it appears they are basing their claims solely on this report (https://www.iamroadsmart.com/media-and-policy/newsroom/news-details/2020...).
And then because IAM have made that press release, that's what makes the headlines in Road.cc, and leads Cycling UK having to pull together a rebuttal, again just focusing on that one issue.
I think Road.cc's headline should either be:
ESRA have released a new report, with some mildly interesting findings, including [various results - mobile phones, high viz, helmets etc]. Some people have said stupid things about it.
OR
IAM Roadsmart publishes deeply biased and harmful press release based on cherry-picking data from ESRA report.
Research has shown that the type of music listened too affects driving styles, in view of this should all car drivers be in isolated compartments and forced to listen to chamber music as long as the ignition is live <sarcasm off>
Sarcasm? Such a measure would definitely save lives, and as we all know from the H-word debates, if it saves one life, it's worth it.
I almost always ride with earbuds. I have a very small MPs player and I listen to books. My rides would be very boring sans this.
When it's very windy / raining I don't.
I can stil hear vehicles ok.
I have a helmet mirror (as we all should
) and can see what is coming better than anyone without noise creating ear things can hear what is coming.
I don't use a helmet mirror - I've found that my neck and my eyes still move adequately for me to look over my shoulder...
I think these figures need to be set against a baseline question, "Do you believe cyclists should be banned?" That might give some context.
Not forgetting the question... are all cyclist peado, nazi's, only good for public lynching? I think the percentage splits would be about the same.
I use headphones on long rides when I start to flag a bit. I don't really see what the issue is with the kind or riding I do (lanes) very few cars and not many junctions but in the city with a lot going on I don't think I'd risk it personally. Ultimately like any law it's not a fit all solution but designed to protect the the lowest common denominator.
I ride alot with my Varia Radar so maybe technology could be a solution to this issue/non-issue
It's not going to be banned, and it wouldn't matter much if it was although there would be attempts (as with helmets) to blame the victims wiped out by drivers. Driving through red lights is 'banned', but you have to go to extreme lengths to force The Filth to accept it as a 'real offence'.
I can't ride with most headphones (don't really like walking down street with most anymore), but decent bone conduction ones are fine. Ban would be fine, if like others say, it's applied to all road users. Same with mobile phone use.
I have read of people saying they see no issue wearing earphones whilst driving. Help !
I'm still not clear what me hearing a car is nearby is going to give me. There will always be cars nearby. I would check it is safe to do so before changing direction MSMMM.
Are there stats for pedestrians crossing the road without looking because they did not hear a bike?
Sole study here on earphones and cars
https://rideonmagazine.com.au/an-ear-on-the-traffic/
Couple of examples from a single traffic light controlled junction with a pelican crossing on my daily commute to demonstrate how hearing helps me in addition to the primary sense of sight.
If I hear the beeps as I approach, usually on the cycle lane on the inside of a queue of stationary vehicles, then I know for sure that people are crossing and that sometimes they go between the cars, so I am extra vigilante and aware of that possibility. When the beeps stop I have approx 8 seconds until the lights change in my favour, this allows me to moderate my speed so I don't have to stop or even use my brakes.
I don't understand why anyone willingly gives up a primary sense, especially in urban environments which are unfortunately hazardous for cyclists and pedestrians and where maximum awareness of what is going on around you surely has to be a good idea?
It's not just the reduction in sound, but the distraction of being in the zone, listening to music, or The Archers, or Harry Potter or whatever it is people listen to.
Could you not go by the lights being red to warn you of pedestrians ?
You must have very good hearing at that distance to know the beeps have stopped.
I'm not going to deny that additional sensory information is important but your example of the pedestrian crossing makes you sound like a car driver that sees the yellow flashing light and ploughs through regardless.
You really shouldn't be detecting noise and adding 8 seconds but be slowing and/or preparing for that person that's run accross at the last second or the elderly person that appears at 10 seconds etc.
You think I'm not aware of that possibility? As I state, I use my sense of hearing to augment my visual awareness of my surroundings in checking that it is safe to proceed. Better awareness leads to better anticipation leads to greater safety, surely you cannot disagree with that?
Despite some evidence e.g:
https://www.livescience.com/36092-injuries-deaths-pedestrians-wearing-he...
I think this discussion is actually a bit irrelevant. As far as I am concerned, and whilst you really shouldn't, you can be wandering in the road at midnight, half naked (you can decide which half), covered in soot, wearing a soundproof bag on your head and paralytic from Babycham and as either a car driver or a cyclist it is absolutely my responsibility not to collide with you. Road safety organisations need to change the tone of campaigns to emphasise the responsibilities of vehicle operators first and foremost.
I'd love to, but yer know... lockdown and all...
You are forgetting that music or audio books (yes really) are distracting, not just for blocking out environmental sounds.
In which case, sound systems must be banned from cars. If what you say is true, it is clear that that is the more pressing emergency....
As noted below - the obvious parallel is to ban music in cars, and to forbid windows to be closed in 30mph areas at least. Fat chance.
Are they telling me that I should also remove my hearing aids - which also happen to stream music or the radio (with outstanding sound quality) and the phone, and let me hear too. I can also tune them if I were minded to, to turn down car and wind noise and turn up the birds in the trees......
I can also turn the music down and external sounds up - or music up and external sounds up. More than you can do in a car....
I personally never wear headphones whilst cycling but the proposed ban is fine with as long as it's implemented consistently.
So that means no headphone use by people driving a vehicle, and all car radios / entertainment systems must be automatically disabled from use whilst the vehicle is moving.
Personally I do not wear earphones/buds while cycling as I like all my senses at maximum alertness.
Equally, I respectfully suggest that pedestrians on shared use routes such as Sustrans cycle routes should also consider not using earphones. Makes bell ringing or calling out warnings of approach from behind near ineffective.
What a load of rubbish.
Does anyone know roughly what percentage of road collisions are caused by cyclists using headphones etc? Meanwhile there are a significant number of collisions caused by drivers not paying enough attention to their surroundings and their driving, so why isn't the question about whether or not vehicles should be fitted with music systems?
The vast majority of the time, hearing only provides information (to a cyclist) about traffic behind them so simply looking behind you before performing a maneouvre will determine whether it is safe to do so. Even if you have hawk-like ears, you should still be checking behind you before attempting a maneouvre, so there shouldn't be much difference.
Besides which, it is perfectly legal to cycle or drive whilst suffering from hearing difficulties, so unless the law is changed to discriminate against the deaf, I can't see that a earbud law is going to be effective.
Pages