Forum menu
Riding well within the rules gets naive well meaning people killed.
Here's Boris being nonchalant and a downright insensitive moron.
No you cantI can....
No you cant
You've no idea!
hmmm.... maybe time to give up on this thread?
I wear earphones and wont change that - I feel obeying the highway code and observations are the way forward . . . If you doubt this try riding a motorbike for a while, nothing beats proper observations. And with some of the quiet engines about/pedestrians and other cyclist I wouldnt trust I was going to hear them all anyway earphones or not.
I can. Maybe you need more practice using your ears? I suspect you would be able to tell, to be honest.
Fair enough. Can you explain the differences in terms of noise?
I can. Maybe you need more practice using your ears?
Stop the thread right there.
Nothing is going to beat that.
Like ,eva 😯
how many times has someone ploughed into the back of you? I presume you have had it happen otherwise how do you know what it sounds like?I can. Maybe you need more practice using your ears?
I can tell when someone's going to pass close and when they're going to pass further away.
I've got two ears, so I have a fairly good idea of where sounds are coming from. It's called stereophonic sound.
If a sound is close, but still directly behind me, then it's going to be close. If it moves out towards my right then it's going to pass.
Can you honestly not locate sounds that are behind you?
We have this argument every time headphone use comes up, and I do wonder if some people just naturally aren't very good at sound location.
molgrips is sheldon being the doppler shift - do i get a fiver?
[img] 
[/img]
Here's Boris being nonchalant and a downright insensitive moron.
[i]Wriggle wriggle wriggle.[/i]
If they ban headphones for cyclists on distraction grounds, then ALL in car entertainment and conversations should be banned for drivers too.
If they ban headphones on safety grounds then they should ban deaf people from cycling and ban cycling on really windy days.
Of course they should do neither and allow people the personal choice. It amazes me how quickly people are happy to throw away their freedom on these threads.
How about just passing one more law to make it an offence to not use your common sense!!!
Fwiw, I cycle all summer with dance music blaring from my earbuds and I can still hear cars approaching from behind.
f a sound is close, but still directly behind me, then it's going to be close. If it moves out towards my right then it's going to pass.
No, personally I don't think I could locate a cars position accurately to within a foot or so over wind noise. What do you do if you think it's going to be close? Most of the overtakes I see when driving I would consider to be close.
Every time I've used headphones, quite a few times (a few tries on road then on the outdoor track mostly), they've made so much noise just from wind that I've had to turn up the music loud. Even without any music on the noise is still loud. Tried four or five sets of headphones.
It's not just the position of the car, it's the sound too. I can recognise a truck or a bus, which causes me to check my position and theirs; I can also recognise a boy racer gunning it which also makes me look round and check they've seen me. If I feel like someone's not seen me I'll hug the kerb or take evasive action.
I don't consider most overtakes to be too close. Most are ok.
agree with Boris. I think riding in town with headphones is crazy. I tried it on a cyclepath once just to see if it was ok like, and 10 metres later failed to hear a car coming from a crossing car park entrance. Saw the car ok, but would have heard it 5 seconds earlier without, which probably equates to 20 metres at a low car speed.
I also agree with Boris. He's trying to make it a safer place for cyclists. Sure there lots of other things that can be done but somethings better than nothing.
Im quite surprised at how many people think they are 'hot shot' riders who don't need their hearing to aid their own safety. It's just as bad as a boy reader who thinks he doesn't need to obey the speed limit to be safe.
The small on-ear phones I use don't stop me hearing/sensing traffic. Doesn't stop me sensing any of the tyres of vehicle mol grips lists but I'm still at a loss as how, if there is a constant stream of cars passing me, how I'm meant to detect the one that's 30cm further left and what I'd be able to do if it was.
This really is just another irrelevant thing to beat each other up about whilst we ignore the real issues. It's just another form of victim blaming. If you think music is dangerously distracting start campaigning for it to be banned from motor vehicles as they're the ones doing the damage. - no-one suggested dealing with deaths of pedestrians caused by drunk motorists by banning pedestrians from drinking
in london, and it is only a mentioned idea to do this in central london, I think riding with earphones is just dumb, there are so many cars/lorrys/motorbikes coming at you from many directions full awareness all around is pretty essential. I can hear / sense behind me as vehicles approach and on the whole can sense how close they are going to be, how fast they are and have an idea what they might do. In central london its an essential one of the senses that help survival.
I can see in less busy cities or on trails it might be less important but come and ride along the embankment/parliament square with headphones on, youre a braver man than me if you do it with headphones on in a busy rush hour.
ollie51 - Member
Here's Boris being nonchalant and a downright insensitive moron.
I'd heard about this earlier on the news portraying Boris as the moron, but seeing that in full I think Jenny Jones was just getting uptight and in a rant, not listening to Boris and seeing insults where there were none... except at the end when Boris did insult her, in a hilarious way 😀
Seriously though, while Boris has shifted the focus to the cyclist, he's bang on here. He's still saying that HGVs are a prime issue to sort out but he's dead right that cyclists have a duty also. To just (as Jenny says) treat the cyclist as pure victim, is wrong. In these 6 cases recently however, who knows until we have all the facts, but there are many who could avoid being run over by HGVs.
Myself, I only ride off road, but even if I was on road, it would be insane to ride up the inside of an HGV at a junction, whether it's their fault if they hit you or not (by not looking in their blind spot where they can't see you 😉 ). Just don't put yourself in harms way.
The cycle routes are a big problem sure. That's one you can rant at Boris about, though sounds like he's doing something about it. Yes it might help more if HGVs were banned at busy times though, but then don't come moaning when deliveries are being delayed, bearing in mind the HGVs are banned from driving overnight in London.
Headphones - up to you, but I'd rather hear the dangers around me. The purpose of headphones is to take you out of the hassles of the world around. That's why I use them at work 😉 . Not really what you want on the road though when those hassles are also dangers you need to pay attention to.
I see many off road with headphones too. Not an issue there, but I don't get it. I ride out in the countryside to get away from it all. Why would you want to get away from the nice countryside environment with headphones? Ah well, each to their own.
in london, and it is only a mentioned idea to do this in central london, I think riding with earphones is just dumb,
I don't know if you ride there but my feeling is the opposite. On my daily commute, which i've been riding for years, I know all the danger spots. I already know where someone might try to sneak inside/outside where the pinch points are, the timing of the light sequences. The best lines through a corner or junction. I probably know every point at which i need to look behind. A bit of background music or speech radio is fine.
I'd not do it on a route I didn't know well, or on fast moving A roads outside town and I don't enjoy riding with music off road (or skiing for that matter).
[url= http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2013/nov/20/blaming-cyclists-road-deaths-bike-helmets-headphones ]Guardian piece from today - don't blame the victims[/url]
"the policeman in charge of traffic enforcement in London, DCS Glyn Jones, had cyclists without helmets stopped by police, saying, "the more vulnerable you are, the more careful you need to be". According to this logic the five-year-old child killed outside his primary school on St George's Road in south London a year ago – and whose father showed me the carrier bag that held the clothes he died in – should have been paying more attention than the drivers whizzing by on a three-lane red route at 3.30pm."
"But is it useful to connect the women lambasted for "risky" behaviour such as getting drunk, wearing tiny skirts or walking the streets after dark, with the cyclists attacked for "risky" behaviour such as not wearing a helmet and fluorescent jacket, or cycling without lights? Or to link both to other examples of (relatively) powerless groups accused of authoring their own failure, such as the poor and obese blamed for eating the wrong food? Or the black state school pupils who choose not to apply to Oxbridge?
I think so. Victim-blaming is a useful concept, because it helps us see that what happens when a victim is blamed is that a culprit – whether an individual, institution, or set of practices – is let off. Why so many people, including women and cyclists, collude in this is not mysterious: it is so much more comfortable to think that the poor bloke killed on his bike last week was an idiot; that the teenage girl gang-raped at a party was a slut. So much more comfortable not to focus on the fact that, if you drive a machine made of a ton of metal down the road, banging into a person and killing them is an occupational hazard."
so shifting the blame firmly over to the cyclists deftly sidestepping criticism of some of his crappier cycle lanes and trying to make everyone forget about HGVs mixing it up with the general public is better than nothing? Hmm I will politely disagree.I also agree with Boris. He's trying to make it a safer place for cyclists. Sure there lots of other things that can be done but somethings better than nothing.
essential in your opinion so anyone one with hearing difficulties shouldn't ride in london then? Or are you one of those with the opinion deaf people get spidey senses? Also if it's so dangerous not to hear stuff what about car radios we gonna ban them or is the fact they are in a tin box mean they don't have to give a shit?In central london its an essential one of the senses that help survival.
Riding through traffic oblivious to your surroundings is a bad move. Riding through traffic with earphones in or hearing difficulties is not necessarily bad. And victim blaming, which is what Boris is doing, most definitely [b]IS[/b] bad.
i would happily put my point to boris given the chance
i wouldnt bother to continue the conversation with moltroll tho.
you specified about to plough into you which is what I asked about - pedantry I know.I can tell when someone's going to pass close and when they're going to pass further away.
yes I can - I can also do that on the occasions I wear headphones 🙂Can you honestly not locate sounds that are behind you?
have you not noticed this from helmets too? WHen I switched from bareheaded bonce to (almost) full time helmeted cyclist I was a bit put out by the wind noise*. Maybe we should ban helmets tooEvery time I've used headphones, quite a few times (a few tries on road then on the outdoor track mostly), they've made so much noise just from wind
ah that could be classed as user error.that I've had to turn up the music loud
*presumably your mileage [i]will[/i] vary between helmet designs
I'm with Boris here (and Molgrips to some extent). On my drive (and sometimes cycle) into the office I see bad examples of cycling all over the place. Jumping of red lights, riders wearing headphones who are seemingly oblivious to their surroundings, no helmets, undertaking of buses, vans and lorries, riding right alongside vehicles turning right or left etc.
That's not to say that drivers are any better - there's just as many god awful drivers on the road too, but the fact is, in a collision between a car and bike, then the cyclist is always going to come off worse.
Yes there should be segregated and better cycle lanes but at the moment there's not - therefore at present it's in the cyclists best interest for them to remain as alert and aware of their surroundings as possible and that includes not wearing earphones, which whether you like it of not [u]are a distraction[/u] and make you less aware of what's going on around you.
Talk of banning people from listening to radio's in a car is irrelevant since car drivers rely almost entirely on visual information to drive rather than listening out for other traffic. Motorists also have mirrors to see whats going on behind them at all times.
Boris is merely stating that cyclists have an obligation to cycle well, and to look out for themselves (of which not wearing headphones is just a part of this).
sorry I forgot to mention banning soundproofing in cars aswell. So one road user has to use every sense going but people inside a metal cage can manage on one. This is basically the argument "you're the soft squishy one who will die so it's your lookout to make sure you dodge the cars and if you can't dodge them then tough shit". (BTW if we get to the point where motorvehicles aren't causing the majority of the accidents and it's proven that cyclists are [s]blindly[/s] deafly throwing themselves infront of traffic then yeah lets have this discussion again and I'll back you up)Talk of banning people from listening to radio's in a car is irrelevant since car drivers rely almost entirely on visual information to drive rather than listening out for other traffic.
apart from their blind spots of course which depending on your vehicle can be fahunting massive. Besides cyclists have the necks which can enable them to turn their heads to give a 360 degree panoramic view without door pillars, darkened glass seatbelt units, headrests etc etc.Motorists also have mirrors to see whats going on behind them at all times.
For the rest of the "I see cyclists do X" arguments have a read of [url= http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/matt-glass/london-cyclist-deaths_b_4298701.html ]this[/url]
Deadkenny +1 spot on
(we really shouldn't find that clip funny though, but it is. I have watched it 3 times now!!!)
It's all conjecture though, unless you anti-headphones chaps have figures that not even Boris has re rates of injury between headphone/non-headphone wearers?
deadkenny - Member
I'd heard about this earlier on the news portraying Boris as the moron, but seeing that in full I think Jenny Jones was just getting uptight and in a rant, not listening to Boris and seeing insults where there were none... except at the end when Boris did insult her, in a hilarious way
Really? He didn't answer the question, usual obsfucation when confronted with his own figures on KSI showing cycling in London is getting more dangerous, then started attacking her personally because there was no defence.
And her riposte at the end was much funnier.
Last night I was waiting on the crossing at Hyde park corner around 5.45pm. The lights had just turned red so had I a final look before crossing. I white van was going really fast, I knew he had no intention of stopping. Luckily everyone else was looking too. I remember reading the number plate and then thinking, whats the point, I'll be wasting my time. When I turned the corner onto Sloane street there were 2 cops with a cyclist. I lost it (a bit) and told them what I thought. They told me to wait until they had finished with the cyclist (who had probably done the same thing as the white van but about 30 MPH slower). This happens all day long in London, buses, lorries and taxis.
Jeez, Jenny Jones is annoying. BoJo was very restrained when confronted with her bickering IMO.
jenny jones is very good, shes done soem ecellent workg to get Borris the master of BS to come clean on his closing of pollution monitoring stations and the numerous pollution alerts hes tried to cover up
cant believe people are still guillable enough to fall for borris' toussel-haired loveable character routine
and impressed about him making japes when it comes to cyclists deaths?!?
...are a distraction [for cyclists] and make you less aware of what's going on around you.Talk of banning people from listening to radio's in a car is irrelevant since car drivers rely almost entirely on visual information...
So music is distracting for cyclists but not for drivers? How does that work then?
Why does background music make one group less aware of what's going on around them and not the other?
allthepies - Member
Jeez, Jenny Jones is annoying. BoJo was very restrained when confronted with her bickering IMO.
What part was 'bickering'?
+1, he hasn't got much else really. He never answers a direct question if the answer is politically difficult for himcant believe people are still guillable enough to fall for borris' toussel-haired loveable character routine
So music is distracting for cyclists but not for drivers? How does that work then?
It's completely different, in a car you aren't being constantly overtaken, you aren't likely to have anyone turn left on you and even if it does happen you are in a metal box with protection.
The cold facts are that consequence of being hit while cycling is far greater than in a car, so as the cyclist you need to do all you can to minimise the probability of being hit. If you can't hear due to music, then you are increasing that chance, because you are less aware of your surroundings.
and that there is a pretty concise example of victim blamingThe cold facts are that consequence of being hit while cycling is far greater than in a car, so as the cyclist you need to do all you can to minimise the probability of being hit.
and the rest of your post seems to be specifically concerned with "left hooks" which are motorists fault. Yeah this is a bad thing that motorists do but the cyclist is the one who will get hurt. Hmmm what to do....?
I know lets make sure it's up to the cyclist to avoid the situation.
Slow hand clap for you too then.
Ban cyclists wearing headphones there will be no real downturn in cycling injuries, same is probably true for compulsive helmet use. Actually stop vehicle hitting cyclists and you will get a massive downturn. So that'll involve either suddenly improving everyone's driving or segregation
I know lets make sure it's up to the cyclist to avoid the situation.
Feel free to take on a lorry as point of principle, but I'll stick to hanging back cheers.
there is a pretty concise example of victim blaming
It isn't victim blaming it is fact, you as a cyclist will come of worse in a crash so you need to control what you can to make your life safer. Awareness of your surroundings, is far more likely to save you than any helmet or hi-viz ever will.
Of course drivers do stupid things, but so do cyclists, rabidly defending cyclists who in your eyes can do no wrong, is daft. Everyone needs to up their game and use the roads safer, and cyclists not using headphones is a small part of this.
It isn't victim blaming it is fact, you as a cyclist will come of worse in a crash so you need to control what you can to make your life safer. Awareness of your surroundings, is far more likely to save you than any helmet or hi-viz ever will.
Of course drivers do stupid things, but so do cyclists, rabidly defending cyclists who in your eyes can do no wrong, is daft. Everyone needs to up their game and use the roads safer, and cyclists not using headphones is a small part of this.
Very true. Now off for a coffee and to watch that clip again. 😉
Mummy stop this horrible man being so nasty to me!!!!
dragon - Member
cyclists not using headphones is a small part of this.
Just repeating it doesn't make it so. What evidence is there that using headphones makes cycling more dangerous?
teamhurtmore - Member
Mummy stop this horrible man being so nasty to me!!!!
I don't use it much but 🙄
Completely baffled how anyone can think Boris comes out of that well. Ball/player comes to mind.
4th time and funniest yet!
Lifer, of course Boris is being an arse. That's him to a tee. The ability to mix common sense, truth, distraction, absurdity, lies and BS often at the same time. Good choice of ball/player idea though ( 😉 ) but in is case i think it was neither, more like tying her laces together and then running round in circles. But Jenny Jones is also being a slightly smaller arse. Her accusation that Boris had personally made cycling more dangerous and the slightly absurd statistics that she read out were laughable. No wonder he decided to play with here and he is a past master at that. Not dignified or particularly clever but pretty well deserved in the context. Oh and (sorry) but bloody funny to watch. A frustrated lightweight against and annoying heavyweight - not really a fair contest.
When was that clip?
Boris was trying to answer her question but she kept on interrupting him and then she accused him of repetition, I presume she thought she was on "Just a Minute".
Boris's point was that with the huge growth in cycling there were more new cyclists who will not have learnt the road craft which makes riding in London safer. This will impact the statistics negatively, Jones was either not listening or too stupid to understand the point.
I've been cycling in London for nearly 30 years. It is a hell of a lot better now than it used to be. I wear a helmet and headphones but disagree with compulsion in respect of forcing/banning. By cycling, I miss out on reading the paper on my journey in so I listen to the Today program to compensate. Obviously this must impact my ability to hear traffic noise but I can still hear it pretty well and it is a risk I am comfortable to assume.
mefty - Member
Boris was trying to answer her question but she kept on interrupting him and then she accused him of repetition, I presume she thought she was on "Just a Minute".
She has an allocated time to ask questions. He was running down the clock in order not to answer the rather inconvenient question/stop her asking more.
I completely disagree with you THM, there is nothing praiseworthy in the way Boris conducts himself. Heavyweight/lightweight has nothing to do with it, see their previous re his 'cyclists are at fault in 60% of collisions' - she kept going for over a year in order to get a retraction.
And it's never going to be a 'fair contest' with a lying, cheating shit like Boris around.
Did I say praiseworthy?
FFS, we need to get a grip. These debates go round and round as always. At the end of the day, there are bad drivers, bad cyclists, bad pedestrians, bad horseriders etc and their good equivalents. As others have said, we ALL need to take responsibility for our safety and the safety of others. When riding, do what you can to minimise risk. Ditto (and more so) when driving. Its not either/or. We all have to play a part. Whining on about it's more your fault, not its not, it's yours, doesn't get anywhere.
Which brings us back to JJ. She needs to learn how to ask questions and to use her time better. She has valid points to make but screwed her chance by letting BJ get under her skin. Perhaps if she had used a bit of humour she could have unsettled him. Instead she went for the whining, offended, it's not fair route.* Waste of everyone's time, but made my coffee break more enjoyable!
* I have no idea about the context of the debate and when it happened and what it was designed for. JJ may have personal reasons for feeling so offended other than BJ playing with her. In which case, I would have more sympathy.
What happens if Boris says, you know what I was wrong about the 60% thing. Does it make a scrap of difference re how safe it is to ride on the road or otherwise? I doubt it. Move on and focus on tangible stuff. Perhaps JJ could go and get a place for a young 'un at some school in Edinburgh. But then again......
So a cyclist who doesn't hear the roar of an engine behind them and fails to jump out of the way hasn't done everything they could to save themselves? From wiki "Victim blaming occurs when the victim of a crime or any wrongful act are held entirely or partially responsible for the harm that befell them." as I said your sentence was victim blaming.The cold facts are that consequence of being hit while cycling is far greater than in a car, so as the cyclist you need to do all you can to minimise the probability of being hit.
your post seemed to be focusing on left hooks, in that situation I'm not taking a lorry or any car "on" they are overtaking then pulling in on me, putting me in danger through no fault of my own. Obviously once put in that situation I'm going to do everything I can to try to get out of the way but if I don't manage it I don't want some **** telling me I didn't try hard enough, so I'm partly to blame.Feel free to take on a lorry as point of principle, but I'll stick to hanging back cheers.
I never said riders do no wrong, of course some do, I just tend to get my panties bunched when politicians start victim blaming and a bunch of "cyclists" follow their lead. And as you've noted vehicles are what does the physical damage why is it such a contentious point that we should be focusing on them - the big heavy objects with a lot of kinetic energy - and their drivers?Of course drivers do stupid things, but so do cyclists, rabidly defending cyclists who in your eyes can do no wrong, is daft.
The headphones "issue" seems to revolve around dodging vehicles, at that point the system - which politicians, police, road planner etc create - has already failed, asking the most vulnerable user to get themselves out of danger is a bit much. Another of often used analogy is you don't hand out bullet proof vests to the public if there are gun toting idiots firing bullets in public places, you get rid of the gun toting idiots.
teamhurtmore - Member
I have no idea about the context of the debate and when it happened and what it was designed for.
"Published on 20 Nov 2013
Jenny Jones AM, Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb, questioned Mayor Boris Johnson on the cycling death toll in London.
This took place at the 20th November 2013 session of Mayor's Question Time at City Hall, London."
So just the whole power/accountability thing that Boris has such obvious disdain for.
Perhaps if she had used a bit of humour she could have unsettled him. Instead she went for the whining, offended, it's not fair route
Bizarre, it's not Live at the Apollo FFS.
Not bizarre at all. In my experience clever ladies know exactly how to use their feminine guile to upset a male bully. Sadly, she didn't and she played into his hands. But you are correct it's not Live at the Apollo nor is PMQ for that matter. But subject matter aside, it wasnt a bad attempt.
Is taxpayers money spent on charades like that? Blimey.
Any way stay safe out there. I was almost wiped out the other day, 50/50 I would say but the balance would have been irrelevant if I ended up in a wooden box. But I can only take control of my actions. Isn't that the point? As I was told when I was younger, assume everyone else on the road is an idiot and behave accordingly.