[Closed] slow hand clap for Boris

I don't feel either comes out of this well. Both look stupid.

But it is indicative of how our governing systems are a complete failure.
In a similar fashion to this forum any debate is reduced to point scoring and insults.

In this case what is needed is a solution to people being killed unnecessarily. Be
But instead it's two tossers quibbling about nothing and the result is nothing gets done

But instead it's two tossers quibbling about nothing and the result is nothing gets done

Exactly.

Teasel's post on the other similar thread says it all really.

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 ..........

Or more accurately matched to Dragon's arguments, it's up to me to anticipate when the bullets are being fired and jump out of the way. That doesn't seem a good game to me - I'm still going to get shot eventually, it might just take a bit longer. I *really* think you should concentrate on the person with the gun and not the person being shot at.

Molgrips...

It makes you turn your head.

If the cars going at 30mph and about to hit you, what good exactly is seeing the car? You won't have the time to react, only to see the car smash into you with a craned neck.

"I cant distinguish between an overtaking vehicle and one about to plough into the back of me"

I can. Maybe you need more practice using your ears? I suspect you would be able to tell, to be honest.

Really? Your ears are so sensitive that they can estimate the speed of traffic coming at you from behind and accurately locate a 6/10 foot wide object emitting sound uniformly across the front of it?

Trained police have problems estimating speed on visual cues, but your hearing acuity is such you'd be able to accurately place a vehicle coming at you from behind at speed in among all the other white noise?

Are you The Batman (tm)? 😉

Regardless, I'm calling shenanigans. Having all your senses about you might prevent you making an unsafe maneuver if there's a vehicle behind. It might also be a cautious and sensible step (although I remain to be convinced), but hearing a potential collision before it happens? I think you're deceiving yourself.

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.

CBA to read the whole thread but I commute on my motorcycle when not cycling, but in common with a lot of ,motorcyclists I always wear earplugs to reduce the noise, should I stop doing this to become more aware of my surroundings?

Thanks to the Independent

'listening to music resulted in reduced visual and auditory perception and reduced speed'

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1369847811000684

Listening to music while cycling deteriorates auditory perception

Well bugger me!
Now it all makes sense
Who paid for that study then???

auditory stop signals were missed in 68% of the cases

Stop signals on the road are all visual - if they were auditory ONLY cyclists would be aware of them.

Completing a task on the mobile phone, using both handheld and handsfree sets, resulted in increased response time to an auditory stop signal

Boris is the only phone user I know of 😆

Motorcyclists have the worst safety record out there, so not sure using them as an example is good at all. Plus you have mirrors anyway, so easier to check what's coming then bikes.

it's up to me to anticipate when the bullets are being fired and jump out of the way.

That's a poor example as no sane driver sets out to kill anyone. At the end of the day it's your life, you have to control the controllable's. You can't stop that granny, taxi, white van driving poorly but you can anticipate it and make adjustments for it, and IMO being able to hear is key to that.

you can anticipate it and make adjustments for it,

I just don't get it. You're with MolGrips - you seriously believe you can "distinguish between an overtaking vehicle and one about to plough into the back of you". If not you're saying that you visually check behind you for every passing vehicle ready to dive off the road if you perceive they're going to plough into you.

This seems like the opposite of 'taking the lane' - you're saying you pull into the gutter every time a vehicle passes rather than hold a safe position?

How do you deal with an overtaking cyclist? Approach without sound, you move out into them (as you're relying on your ears not your eyes to tell you if theres something behind) clip them and send them into the traffic coming the other way.

I'd make a completely different case:

All cyclists should be made to wear headphones.

Relying on your auditory senses to detect vehicles is dangerous because cyclists, invalid carriages, and electric motorbikes and cars are silent.

Anything that forces a cyclist to look before making any manoeuvre that changes their position in the road and could bring them into conflict with vehicles approaching from behind is a good thing. Ergo, blocking out hearing to resist the temptation to make any assumptions based on what you've heard would improve safety by forcing you to rely on visual checks.

The other case is that it's distracting, in which case the primary thing to do would be to remove the distraction from the drivers of dangerous motor vehicles.

You can't claim it's distracting and not think that this should happen.

Anything that forces a cyclist to look before making any manoeuvre that changes their position in the road and could bring them into conflict with vehicles approaching from behind is a good thing.

I use the cycling equivalent of the HGV/sane driving technique of looking in the mirrors every three seconds. A quick glance over your shoulder, sometimes just using your peripheral, is enough to confirm the road state behind. In most situations, anyway...

I'll also point out a handful of times over the years I've been surprised to find a car next to/behind me when I've been riding along sans headphones, nothing too dangerous, JRA and I hadn't heard them approaching (and I've got pretty good hearing as it goes) The introduction of more electric cars will muddy the waters too.

You can't claim it's distracting and not think that this should happen.

can someone do something about the wind noise i get when i ride really fast? It really doesnt help me hear things behind me.

I use the cycling equivalent of the HGV/sane driving technique of looking in the mirrors every three seconds. A quick glance over your shoulder,

You glance over your shoulder every three seconds while cycling?? 😯

[img] [/img]

How do you deal with an overtaking cyclist?

How do you?

You glance over your shoulder every three seconds while cycling??

😀 I like the pic.

But, yes - on a particular bit of road I turn my head to the right probably more like every 8 seconds if it's busy, less if it's early in the day before rush hour.

I don't always turn and look (although as stated, that's usually peripheral), I turn my right ear out of the wind and listen as an alternative. Obviously I look directly behind before negotiating RHT etc.

Actually, my partner used to commute and used one of those mirrors that stuff into the end of your handlebar - I reckon it's got to be the way forward for me, eh. Save the old neck.

I have no idea why it hasn't crossed my mind before now...

You glance over your shoulder every three seconds while cycling??

Not every three seconds but certainly every 8-10.
One of the things about riding/racing track regularly is that you're conditioned to look, it becomes an automatic response before every single movement.

That carries over into commuting although I appreciate that 99.9% of commuters have probably never even seen a velodrome never mind raced in one!

Actually, my partner used to commute and used one of those mirrors that stuff into the end of your handlebar - I reckon it's got to be the way forward for me, eh.

IME they're shit - too small, they vibrate too much to give any useful info and they stick out so restrict you from getting through gaps.

8-10 sounds more reasonable - though most of the time I'm on quiet roads so if I'm just trundling along the straight I'll only look back when I [i]hear[/i] something coming...

...ah..

crap I think I just agreed with molgrips.

How do you?

By looking behind me before I make any change in road position. Unaffected by whether I'm wearing headphones or not.

- meh

but the argument appears to be drivers don't need to concentrate on driving as they have a big steel cage protecting them, which is lovely for them.

No the argument is that some drivers are s**t and don't concentrate, can't concentrate, never have, never will. This is not right, not how it should be - just how it is, and will continue to be, you can't change that.

So the only option as a cyclist, with the present poor road infrastructure for cyclists, is to be aware of them, and you get much better awareness by NOT wearing headphones. Surely you don't need a scientific study or statistics to prove this - it's bl**dy obvious!

and with that, I'm out.

simons_nicolai-uk

By looking behind me before I make any change in road position. Unaffected by whether I'm wearing headphones or not.

Us motorbikers refer to this practice as the "lifesaver". If changing road position, turning etc do your lifesavers.

The motorbike makes a nonsense of the headphones consternation - My CBR is hella louder than any music I might have on headphones on the pedal bike, but I'm still paying attention. The issue is more (IMO) with giving drivers audio cues than us needing them to dodge crashes. The posters calling for a ban on in car radio are probably closer to solving issues for cyclists than banning headphones. 🙂

EdLong posted a really interesting link in an earlier debate:

[url= http://www.londoncyclist.co.uk/raf-pilot-teach-cyclists/ ]

This one:

[url= http://www.londoncyclist.co.uk/raf-pilot-teach-cyclists/ ]http://www.londoncyclist.co.uk/raf-pilot-teach-cyclists/[/url]

agent007...

So the only option as a cyclist, with the present poor road infrastructure for cyclists, is to be aware of them, and you get much better awareness by NOT wearing headphones. Surely you don't need a scientific study or statistics to prove this - it's bl**dy obvious!

A much better awareness of what? The car about to plough into you? Or the truck overtaking you? If you hear the lorry behind, are you going to pull to a stop? If so you'll not make good progress!

I just don't know what not wearing headphones contributes to other than a false sense of security? Do your lifesavers if changing road position, and take up a good road position.

Maybe I've been doing all the wrong things in my 20 odd years of cycling, but I can't see what not wearing headphones helps with.

edlong...

http://www.londoncyclist.co.uk/raf-pilot-teach-cyclists/

That's the one!

And the one I failed to post properly! 😀

I can't see what not wearing headphones helps with.

Junkyard...

Other than underlining your desire for a career in comedy, were you hoping to make a contribution to the thread?

How does not wearing earphones make things safer for responsible cyclists?

How does not wearing earphones make things safer for responsible cyclists?

For me, the more of my senses, and the more of my brain being focused on a task then the better I am at doing that task.
Others may get different results, but as I don't then the responsible thing for me to do would be to not wear headphones.

On my motorbike, I always wear earplugs to reduce the chance of damaging my hearing. Combined with the noise of the engine, this means I have almost no sensory input from my ears of any use. Miraculously, I not just don't crash, but am also able to maintain a continuous sense of where other traffic is in relation to my personal space- it's called riding defensively.
When I'm on my bicycle, I have the added advantage of being even more maneuverable, being able to take to the pavement even- if my life depends on it.

Funnily enough, I can also drive my car which is bigger, faster and with more blind spots whilst listening simultaneously to 'I'm sorry I haven't a clue', the wife and a sat nav.

The point I'm trying to make again, is that just because YOU can't concentrate when listening to music or learning Spanish or whatever else you're doing through your earbuds- doesn't mean that banning them for EVERYONE will enhance cyclist safety.
All it means is that YOU shouldn't wear them.

Blanket banning things to help one idiot avoid Darwinism in action is a slippery slope.

I personally think no laws are needed, just an adjustment of attitude and a removal of egos.
If we MUST have a new law, assumed driver responsibility would be a far better one,

Your car and motorbike have mirrors though don't they.

And leave out the 'miraculously' and 'funnily enough', sarcasm just makes your post unpleasant.

And let's clear one thing up to whoever it was back there.

I don't RELY on my ears to ride, that's blatantly ridiculous. I use sound AND vision together. More data is better in this case.

Maybe I've been doing all the wrong things in my 20 odd years of cycling, but I can't see what not wearing headphones helps with.

Maybe you have, yes. Cos when I've ridden with headphones the difference in my own awareness is dramatic and startling. That's why I don't do it. Don't assume this is just me making assumptions - I speak from experience.

8-10 sounds more reasonable

Yeah, I should've made that clearer in the original post - the three seconds is for motor vehicles. I meant the principle of regularly checking being a good idea - peripheral sight, sound and sometimes, when things like diesel spills are about, the sense of smell, too. But that's like teaching grandma to suck eggs; I reckon we all do these things to lesser and greater degrees due to survival instinct.

I wasn't posting @ you molgrips- just in general so don't get too defensive 😉
I'm just fed up with people blanket banning things based on spurious claims.

Yes they have mirrors, but they also have whopping blind spots and on some of my motorbikes, the vibration rendered them useless anyway.

If you ride all the time with headphones, then your brain learns when it can enjoy the 'choones and when it needs to ignore it- just like in the car.

Re the video link I posted.

First, if you thought Boris was a fool/insensitive/a reprobate, you might find this funny:
[url= http://toys.usvsth3m.com/boris-johnsons-cycle-safety-test/ ]Boris Johnson's cycle safety test [/url]
I haven't decided if it's a strawman or worrying insight in to his mind yet, but it's quite funny.

Second, if you think Boris is being reasonable, sentimental etc - can I please have some of what you are smoking? He didn't have any answers and resorted to a series of ad hominem. Seriously though, to be shrouded by his cuddly exterior still after watching that you must either be taking some heavy drugs or exclude your reading to the Daily Telegraph.

Boris fails to address the issue that cycling is not getting safer during his [s]rise of fame and riches[/s] term of office as mayor, Jenny's statistic clearly show this fact. He's using the fact that less people having died under his term of office and ignoring the fact that notably more people have been seriously/critically injured/died under him. Instead he's taken to (mostly outside of that questioning) blaming or implying blame upon various things - the cyclists themselves, HGV drivers, earphones etc. However the real issue is one of infrastructure - the notion of having HGVs sharing road space with cyclists is difficult at best, and fatal in reality. Here's the issue, it would take a monumental amount of money to make the necessary infrastructural changes. And hey, guess what the Tories stopped all of when they got to office? Nigh on all transport infrastructure projects, as part of their crazed austerity (there's different to fiscal consolidation, which is what we really needed to do).

Read between the lines folks, he's ducking and diving because the political ramifications of this are less than actually making a u-turn and actually dealing with the issue - he's doing this, because he can.
As for Jenny Jones, what she was doing is called redress of grievance. That's what she's elected to. We need more people like her representing us, and less people who look hilarious in their tennis kit. Her comeback was better too.

Oh and those of you saying cyclists are to blame, well sometimes yes (I see some down right ridiculous riding daily), but the 'literature' and studies are saying that it's the driver most of the time. Cyclists should probably have some form of training but it does need to remain accessible, so I believe it should become a part of the national curriculum, unfortunately that wouldn't be happening any time soon - a four letter name that sounds like clove is (partially) the reason why.

Study by the Department for Transport:

With adult cyclists, police found the driver solely responsible in about 60%-75% of all cases, and riders solely at fault 17%-25% of the time.

As for banning headphones, would you ban car radios too, do people with hearing aids have to stay off their bike? You're a little silly wearing them in urban areas, but cycling safely is so much more than being able to hear to your full ability.

Boris needs a chat show on channel 4, not a capital city to run.

So the only option as a cyclist, with the present poor road infrastructure for cyclists, is to be aware of them, and you get much better awareness by NOT wearing headphones

what we are (or were) discussing here is a politician and mayor who wants to deflect criticism and is doing repeated bouts of victim blaming. The "establishments" position should be to focus on bad/illegal road use, dangerous infrastructure and maybe a bit of cycle promotion. [b]Not[/b] telling the vulnerable road users to dodge the traffic a bit better. Having one set of rules for one user (car radios no special clothes or headgear - despite the fact helmets could save a lot of drivers) and a completely different set for the vulnerable ones (earphones, no hi viz or a helmet? You stupid idiot!) is a bit rich especially as the same people who want this are probably the ones shouting cyclists should follow the rules (that many drivers flout) before they should get any respect.

Given any road user will never be able to use the road safer than by using as much Available information and spatial awareness to judge ALL decisions any reduction in input (from your senses) will reduce the quality of your decision making and cannot increase it.
If as a cyclist you choose to reduce your hearings input to listen to music you are a kidding yourself that this can have no I'll effect to your decision making.
This does not need to be compared to the cause of recent cyclist deaths nor likens to stupid suggestions that deaf cyclists should be banned.
A motorist upon shutting the door is largely cut off audibly from the outside world however they are equally unlikely to die as a result of not hearing another car about to rear end them.
A motorcyclist needs a helmet for their own protection due to higher speed impacts, the reduction in audible input still reduces quality of decision making but is viewed a tolerable risk given high chance of death due to h high speed impacts without a helmet being unacceptable.
Argue all you wish as to how you are unaffected by headphones but any reduction in input will always reduce quality of anyone's decision making.

By being seen as not taking our own safety as important to ourselves we can never expect to be vowed by non cyclists (ie motorists as nothing more than nutjobs who expect the rest of society to bend to our way of life which will never happen).

Don't ride in the gutter / pavement.
Get some lights.
Get reflective + put the reflectors back on your bike.
Play fair on the road, it's not designed for strava.
Ride defensive & assume everyone has not seen/heard you.
Consider a helmet, it may help reduce injury from falling off and hitting the ground (yet I accept will not protect you from being run over by bus, is not wearing one a rational decision that you expect to be run down and not clipped by a car passing too close and simply fall off, seems odd logic).

IanMunro

For me, the more of my senses, and the more of my brain being focused on a task then the better I am at doing that task.
Others may get different results, but as I don't then the responsible thing for me to do would be to not wear headphones.

I think that's entirely fair enough - If you reckon headphones distract you, then that makes sense. Yours is one of the few to say "This works for me" rather than "this works for me, so everyone should do it"

Molgrips...

Maybe you have, yes. Cos when I've ridden with headphones the difference in my own awareness is dramatic and startling. That's why I don't do it. Don't assume this is just me making assumptions - I speak from experience.

Molgrips - What does it make you more aware of? I've asked you this and some other questions before and you've just ignored them. So...

Do you think that hearing traffic behind you will enable you to dodge a car hitting you from the rear? Or stop a truck overtaking you and turning left right in front of you? What does it make you more aware of?

If you do lifesavers before undertaking a maneuver on the road, what does this awareness gain you?

IanMunro has, IMO made the most valid and reasoned point - Listening to music distracts him. I can't take any issue with that - although I hope it means he's canned listening to tunes in the car too! 😀

I'm not against you doing whatever you like on the bike, but going from "I don't like it" to "therefore it's dangerous" to "so they should be banned" is a leap too far.

Since witnessing a fatal accident I've always worn a helmet. I know the data around helmet use suggests that cycle ones aren't a lot of use, but it makes me feel better. I've no issue with others doing the same with headphones, but I disagree with the conclusion that it's dangerous when there are no facts to back that up.

[quote=crosshair drooled]Funnily enough, I can also drive my car which is bigger, faster and with more blind spots whilst listening simultaneously to 'I'm sorry I haven't a clue', the wife and a sat nav.

I'll bet you don't really listen properly to one of those 😉

I'm just fed up with people blanket banning things based on spurious claims

There may be people who can ride with headphones on perfectly well, but there may be people whose perception is limited by them.

But people who start cycling might decide they need music whilst they ride, and put headphones on because they see other people doing it and think it's normal. But with inexperience they might not realise what they're missing out on by not being able to hear as well.

I didn't catch half the stuff I do now when I started out.

[quote=nwilko drooled]Argue all you wish as to how you are unaffected by headphones but any reduction in input will always reduce quality of anyone's decision making.

The question is, how much? Would you care to quantify? If the answer is 1%, then it's not even really worth a 4 page thread on STW, let alone banning them.

I note that in the study linked above, the error bars on reaction times overlapped for the cases with and without headphones.

I'm still not sure what a cyclist in rush hour London is going to hear that will save their life?

If it's a distraction issue then the people in charge of many tons of dangerous metal should be banned too as should their sat navs and their hands-free phones.

I'm sorry for being so blatantly argumentative but I cannot comprehend any logic that says someone in charge of a motor vehicle is capable of steering it in amongst thousands of other moving objects at speed whilst their brain is overwhelmed with technology bombarding all of their senses with no ill effect
Yet Cafe del Mar coming out of my iPhone is making me incapable of controlling this machine that responds lightly to my merest body movement. Something so intertwined with my physical self that it feels like an extension of walking.

Like I say, if you personally can't do it then I recommend not doing it but that is no reason to ban it- I would bet that in a scientific study, consistent use of earphones would result in no loss of spacial awareness. Occasional use would probably be more dangerous as your brain wouldn't have adapted to shutting the music out at critical times?

Another example. As a teenager I used to drive tractors and trailers for my dad during harvest. Whether Just a Minute, Chris Moyles, Dave Pearce's Dance anthems, or The Archers was blaring out of the tinny speakers at full volume it made no difference- I would never 'hear' anything that happened whilst reversing the 14ton trailer into the tiny 'wet pit' which had two upright RSJ's with just 3" of clearance each side. My brain needed full concentration and made sure it got it.

I'm not against you doing whatever you like on the bike, but going from "I don't like it" to "therefore it's dangerous" to "so they should be banned" is a leap too far.

The problem I think stems from when people forget others might have more/better/different experience and start saying "you should do it my way, if not you are obviously just an idiot" pick any subject and someone on here will have done it differently and better than you and no doubt be condescending about your choices.

Anyway I'm getting a waaaaay OT, not only has Boris got us off the subject of crap cycle lanes and HGVs we've even forgotten about Boris.