Coroner blames headphones

[Bez]

Not if the surgeon needed to actually hear something as part of the procedure.

You're doing what the media have been doing, and conflating the two issues of distraction and reduced auditory function. They are absolutely not the same thing. The coroner referred only to the former.

For a cyclist, listening is very much part of the diagnosis of road conditions, movement and position of other vehicles. Choosing not to be able to hear does not seem sensible.

There's a lot of debate about this. What you say is the "common sense" assumption, but the evidence does not necessarily agree.

In any case, to repeat the point: reduction in ability to hear was (at least as far as reports are concerned) not mentioned by the coroner. Nor, given the facts available regarding the manner in which events unfolded, do I think it seems feasible that impaired hearing was a factor.

[pwa]

When I cycle or drive and I am about to turn left I am naturally interested in the intentions of pedestrians who might be about to cross the road I am turning into. If they have headphones on I am doubly wary because I find that headphone wearing pedestrians are particularly liable to stepping off the pavement without looking. Instead of there being the two of us keeping us safe there is just me. I can think of no reason why this zombie-like state of being would not also apply to cyclists wearing headphones.

[meic]

This often comes up and there is a road that I frequently cycle down where pedestrians step out in front of me onto the road on quite a regular basis which I have decided to keep a mental record of ever since. Of the many who continue to step out in front, I still havent seen one wearing headphones step out in front of me.

Surely when watching pedestrians at a junction that you are turning into, the only thing that you would be looking for, is whether or not they had looked at you.

[pwa]

This often comes up and there is a road that I frequently cycle down where pedestrians step out in front of me onto the road on quite a regular basis which I have decided to keep a mental record of ever since. Of the many who continue to step out in front, I still havent seen one wearing headphones step out in front of me.

Surely when watching pedestrians at a junction that you are turning into, the only thing that you would be looking for, is whether or not they had looked at you.

I can see that I am going to have to keep a proper record too, to see if headphone wearers are less aware of their surroundings. My son certainly is when he wanders around the kitchen oblivious to those around him.

Personally, I sometimes switch the radio off in the car when I think I need to concentrate more. I know that music and speech affect my concentration, as well as interfering with other sounds.

[meic]

Personally, I sometimes switch the radio off in the car when I think I need to concentrate more.

I can do that in my head.
I think that this is a difference between people, some can easily tune music in and out without being bothered by it. Others cant ignore it.
I am like that with many other things (barking dogs, whining brats, sniffing), so I can understand how it may effect others but I imagine that it helps most of us who do like music in our cars or on our bikes!

[wearwell]

Not if the surgeon needed to actually hear something as part of the procedure.

You're doing what the media have been doing, and conflating the two issues of distraction and reduced auditory function. They are absolutely not the same thing. The coroner referred only to the former.

For a cyclist, listening is very much part of the diagnosis of road conditions, movement and position of other vehicles. Choosing not to be able to hear does not seem sensible.

There's a lot of debate about this. What you say is the "common sense" assumption, but the evidence does not necessarily agree.

What evidence? Have there been trials of hearing and non hearing cyclist behaviour? In the absence of science "common sense" has to rule - and it's certainly sensible to take notice of the sound of an HGV approaching from behind or otherwise out of sight.
I often cycle without my hearing aids because of wind or traffic noise. This entails very different behaviour - mainly a lot of cautious extra vigilance - looking over one's shoulder etc.

In any case, to repeat the point: reduction in ability to hear was (at least as far as reports are concerned) not mentioned by the coroner. Nor, given the facts available regarding the manner in which events unfolded, do I think it seems feasible that impaired hearing was a factor.

I didn't say that impaired hearing was a factor - I know nothing about this case.
What I am saying is that in general, hearing is undoubtedly a factor in road safety, especially for a cyclist. In this case she was at risk wearing earphones, whether or not they were part of the cause.
Actually it seems so obvious it surely shouldn't be necessary to argue it at all.

[tykeboy2003]

When I cycle or drive and I am about to turn left I am naturally interested in the intentions of pedestrians who might be about to cross the road I am turning into. If they have headphones on I am doubly wary because I find that headphone wearing pedestrians are particularly liable to stepping off the pavement without looking. Instead of there being the two of us keeping us safe there is just me. I can think of no reason why this zombie-like state of being would not also apply to cyclists wearing headphones.

Quite. I hope you have not forgotten that when you turn from one road onto another ALL traffic on that "new" road have priority over you?

[tykeboy2003]

Please note the different title to my posting.

The title of the OP is factually wrong. The coroner SPECULATED that the wearing of headphone MAY have been a contributory factor.

[Bez]

What evidence? Have there been trials of hearing and non hearing cyclist behaviour?

Yes, there have (although the most prominent study is of very questionable relevance) and there are also some other data which are pertinent. If you follow the links I've posted you'll find it.

In the absence of science "common sense" has to rule - and it's certainly sensible to take notice of the sound of an HGV approaching from behind or otherwise out of sight.

"Common sense" is absolutely fine for individual decisions, but—not least because it's quite often flawed or even flat wrong—it's a very poor basis for population policy decisions.

I often cycle without my hearing aids because of wind or traffic noise. This entails very different behaviour - mainly a lot of cautious extra vigilance - looking over one's shoulder etc.

So you're saying that when you are deprived of the sense of sound you consciously rely more on the sense of sight…? Given that sight is far more reliable a means of assessing the immediate road environment, wouldn't "common sense" potentially imply that even though you may feel ill at ease, your compensation means you may actually be safer in this case?

I didn't say that impaired hearing was a factor - I know nothing about this case.

No, what you were saying was that you disagreed with the evidence that music can improve someone's ability to focus on a cognitive task, on the basis that their ability to hear may be compromised. My point is that these are different things.

What I am saying is that in general, hearing is undoubtedly a factor in road safety, especially for a cyclist. In this case she was at risk wearing earphones, whether or not they were part of the cause. Actually it seems so obvious it surely shouldn't be necessary to argue it at all.

Things that "seem obvious" often most necessitate discussion, because things that seem obvious but aren't true cause a lot of problems. All your statement says is that you don't really care what happened in this situation, you're going to use it as confirmation bias that listening to music must increase risk. You're just making assumptions.

I should say, in case it wasn't perfectly clear already, that I'm not saying that everyone should start using headphones. I'm not a headphone user. And I'm not even saying that there's no negative effect from using them. What I'm saying is that there's no evidence of a negative effect, and that simply repeating "it must be true, it's common sense" is not a valid argument outside of a Ukip party conference.

[wearwell]

.... All your statement says is that you don't really care what happened in this situation, you're going to use it as confirmation bias that listening to music must increase risk. You're just making assumptions.
.....

If you bothered to read what I said you would see that I made no mention of listening to music or anything.
The point is that in not being able to hear well (due to wearing earphones, whether or not you are listening to music or for whatever other reason) is a disadvantage to a cyclist as he/she may miss cues of traffic movement etc.
I know this from experience - hearing loss deprives you of a good deal of awareness of your surroundings and movements of people and vehicles.
To argue against this is simply moronic - ask any deaf person.

You don't need scientific proof to know that a deaf person can't hear the sound of an approaching vehicle.
You don't need scientific proof to know that a person with reduced hearing ability (e.g wearing earphones) will hear less.

If you don't believe me do your own experiment - try cycling with ear plugs.

[Bez]

If you bothered to read what I said you would see that I made no mention of listening to music or anything.

You said "in this case she was at risk wearing earphones". There seems no evidential basis for this, hence my remark that it's confirmation bias. Granted, to be strictly accurate I should have said "wearing earphones" instead of "listening to music".

If you don't believe me do your own experiment - try cycling with ear plugs

Well, I have; I've used a windproof winter hat which reduced my ability to hear very significantly and (again, discussed in the links, though admittedly in the first comment below the "Sounds of Science" article) I've tried riding with headphones. I find that I feel somewhat ill at ease when I do, because I'm not accustomed to it and have never felt an urge to become accustomed to it (FWIW, I don't use that windproof hat any more and I don't ride with headphones). Part of that is probably that, yes, I feel more at risk. But feeling ill at ease is not the same thing as increasing my risk of being involved in a collision and it's certainly not the same thing as increasing the risk of my behaviour contributing to the occurrence of a collision; indeed feeling less at ease and/or more at risk may (or, of course, may not) reduce complacency and induce safer behaviour. This is one way in which "common sense" things that "seem obvious" often turn out to be very much in need of discussion: the things that we're very conscious of are prominent in our minds, but our less conscious responses and reactions are less so. "Common sense" takes far more attention of the "obvious" former than it does the latter, yet the latter should not be ignored.

Also, as a side note, not all headphones are equal. I have some which wedge firmly in the ear and block out all sound (I don't like this even when I'm just sitting down) and I have some which leave the ear open to hear sounds around me, with music below a certain volume having little effect on that ability.

There is much more complexity to this than simply stating that one is "at risk wearing headphones".

By the way (aimed at anyone who fancies it), what's the "common sense" opinion on cycling while listening to music from a loudspeaker…? (Anti-social considerations aside.)

[wearwell]

...
You said "in this case she was at risk wearing earphones". There seems no evidential basis for this, hence my remark that it's confirmation bias. Granted, to be strictly accurate I should have said "wearing earphones" instead of "listening to music".....)

Anything which reduces your ability to hear what's going on in the environment will reduce your ability to react to those things.

In the absence of any other information it seems reasonable to assume that wearing earphones will have this effect, whether or not you are listening to music, The Archers, or nothing at all.

Hence anybody cycling and wearing earphones is very probably putting themselves at risk.

Even if any eventual accident is entirely the fault of the other driver (drunk, blind, on his mobile, whatever) the earphone wearing cyclist has reduced his/her chance to take preemptive or evasive action.

[tykeboy2003]

wearing earphones will have this effect

By extension, anything covering the ears will similarly reduce hearing.

Should motorcycle helmets be banned?

Should my wooly hat be banned?

Radios in cars - particularly the ones where you can hear the booming bass from the other end of town - must reduce driver's ability to hear anything other than the sound system. I bet no coroner has commented on this after an RTA....

I think that the coroner has done a disservice to cyclists with his/her remark (well intentioned as it might have been) and the BBC has exacerbated it (see my earlier post about Eddie Mair).

[mjr]

When I cycle or drive and I am about to turn left I am naturally interested in the intentions of pedestrians who might be about to cross the road I am turning into. If they have headphones on I am doubly wary because I find that headphone wearing pedestrians are particularly liable to stepping off the pavement without looking. Instead of there being the two of us keeping us safe there is just me.

You're supposed to give way to people crossing the road you're turning into, anyway!

You don't need scientific proof to know that a deaf person can't hear the sound of an approaching vehicle.
You don't need scientific proof to know that a person with reduced hearing ability (e.g wearing earphones) will hear less.

But you do need scientific proof that hearing is a critical part of road-handling worth bothering to regulate. I don't think it is. It's common sense: you've at most two rather crude reception points which get confused by different engine sounds (or lack thereof - overtaking bicycles or electric vehicles, for examples), wind noise and tons of other stuff. Sight is sufficient. That's why there's a crude sight test in the driving test, but no hearing test. Why should cyclists be held to tougher hearing requirements than motorists? Do we want to discourage cycling?

So the common-sense conclusion is that hearing isn't necessary or worth regulating for any road users. It's a red herring used by motoring lobbyists to beat on cycling. Plenty of motorists are driving around with blocked hearing, both bluetooth earpieces and full-on headphones. Probably a far greater number than those cycling and much more able to do damage, so why's no-one getting excited about them?

My hearing was slightly damaged in a factory decades ago and is now rather unreliable. It didn't change my crash rate AFAICT. Like some other people cycling around West Norfolk (which is where I got the idea from!), I listen to music on a bluetooth speaker sometimes (Mike Doughty, for example - Gimme the Cake) and I've not crashed while doing that. Heck, I even use an earphone for the satnav when visiting London (too many noisy motorists to rely on the speaker) and I don't remember ever crashing in London (famous last words? ).

Even if any eventual accident is entirely the fault of the other driver (drunk, blind, on his mobile, whatever) the earphone wearing cyclist has reduced his/her chance to take preemptive or evasive action.

I asked this on another forum: what the heck do you do differently just because you hear a motorist nearby? Stop riding in the gutter? Stop cutting blind corners? If it makes you safer, shouldn't you be doing it anyway, just in case you don't hear a motorist approach due to a strong headwind or other loud noise like a nearby chainsaw masking them?

[wearwell]

wearing earphones will have this effect

By extension, anything covering the ears will similarly reduce hearing.

Should motorcycle helmets be banned?

Should my wooly hat be banned?

Radios in cars - particularly the ones where you can hear the booming bass from the other end of town - must reduce driver's ability to hear anything other than the sound system.....

The difference should be fairly obvious - motorbikes, other vehicles, are generally moving at the same speed as the rest of the traffic and are highly visible, compared to push bikes which will regularly be overtaken by the others, and can be inconspicuous - especially these winter days and cyclist going around in camouflage gear!
Hearing something approaching to overtake is very useful - you won't be surprised and you will leave room (if there is room) or maintain your road soace (if there isn't).
Cars/motor bikes this happens much less frequently, they have good vis with mirrors and are big enough to deter other vehicles from squeezing past.

I asked this on another forum: what the heck do you do differently just because you hear a motorist nearby? Stop riding in the gutter? Stop cutting blind corners? If it makes you safer, shouldn't you be doing it anyway, just in case you don't hear a motorist approach due to a strong headwind or other loud noise like a nearby chainsaw masking them?

If there appeared to be the slightest chance of a collision course you would act accordingly - does this really need explaining? If you don't hear them then so be it - but it might be your unlucky day!

Nobody is suggesting that earphones should be banned - it's generally assumed that people are sensible enough not use them on busy roads. In fact you'd have to be a very naive beginner, or an idiot.