Coroner blames headphones

[mjr]

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).

You should be doing taking an appropriate line through the road layout anyway!

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!

We don't have eyes in the backs of our heads, nor can we ride along looking backwards or checking rear-view mirrors during all of every overtake, so there's always a slight chance of them swerving back into you even if they looked to be taking a good line when you did look. Road users absolutely should not scurry into the gutter every time we hear a motorist and I'm flabbergasted that someone seems to be advocating it here!

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.

Well, seeing as I've already said that I only use earphones on the busiest roads and speakers otherwise, let me say that I've been cycling for decades and I currently think the same about you

[meic]

If the road is so dangerous that you can not survive without perfect hearing and a helmet, then somebody probably isnt too bright being there in the first place!

[AlaninWales]

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.

Ahh yes, the problem of the Invisible Cyclists. I call rubbish on that one and to illustrate my point, someone else's vid: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b8pX52v_yNA&index=68&list=LLxh0QwWxK6TvHL4CF7hf0Tg

Can you really tell from the sound of a vehicle, whether it is on a collision course? That's a super-sense right there!

[The utility cyclist]

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.

And as we know, speculation from someone with a heck of a lot of weight behind them and said in the way it has (& all too often is) is then taken as being an actuality. The evidence for this is absurdly abundant and I think it's irresponsible of the coroner personally

[wearwell]

..........
Ahh yes, the problem of the Invisible Cyclists. I call rubbish on that one and to illustrate my point, someone else's vid: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b8pX52v_yNA&index=68&list=LLxh0QwWxK6TvHL4CF7hf0Tg

What is that supposed to show? He was clearly visible. The van driver was a prat.
I had a camouflaged cyclist the other day - barely visible - he was coming down a sun and shadowy country lane towards me - the background was either blackish or shades of green, he was wearing black clothes with a green stripe. He probably thought the green was higher vis but infact worked as camouflage. Plenty of room so no prob.

Can you really tell from the sound of a vehicle, whether it is on a collision course? That's a super-sense right there!

No of course you can't. But if a vehicle is approaching one way or another it's better to know rather than not. Any more stupid questions?

If you have any doubts just have a go riding with ear plugs.

The coroner SPECULATED that the wearing of headphone MAY have been a contributory factor.

Seems fair comment to me. We will never know.

PS I know what it's like since a started losing my hearing. You are pedalling a long a quiet road and all of a sudden a huge vehicle appears by your side overtaking, which you simply hadn't been aware of. You also lose judgement of sound distances (with hearing aids) and can be alarmed by sound of something which is safe distance away.
Extra caution and extra looking over the shoulder - all the time.
To choose not to hear (by wearing earphones etc) is insane. I don't suppose it'll be banned - not many people do it - most have enough sense to work it out for themselves.

[The utility cyclist]

How can the coroners comment be "fair" when there simply is no evidence to suggest hearing impairment or wearing earphones causes people on bikes to be distracted and/or induces them into making mistakes, there is no evidence to be able to make that speculation, it is a pure guess and a poor one at that.
What it does do is attribute blame in an area without any scrap of evidence, as I said before, apply the same statement as if speaking about the HGV driver and it shows you just how ridiculous it is.
"I cannot determine if he was listening to music at the time, but if he had been, it could have caused a distraction and could have contributed to the cause of the accident"

[wearwell]

How can the coroners comment be "fair" when there simply is no evidence to suggest hearing impairment or wearing earphones causes people on bikes to be distratced and/or induces them into making mistakes, there is no evidence to be able to make that speculation, it is a pure guess and a poor one at that.

You don't need evidence you just need logic - if people can't hear a vehicle and also haven't seen it, they would not be aware of its presence - hence reasonable to speculate that it might have been a cause here. He isn't attributing blame - he's just drawing attention to a possible cause.

[PhilWhitehurst]

It's news to me that you can't hear any external sounds with headphones in. Has anyone else listened to music on headphones and struggled to hear it because of the noise from traffic?

[The utility cyclist]

How can the coroners comment be "fair" when there simply is no evidence to suggest hearing impairment or wearing earphones causes people on bikes to be distratced and/or induces them into making mistakes, there is no evidence to be able to make that speculation, it is a pure guess and a poor one at that.

You don't need evidence you just need logic - if people can't hear a vehicle and also haven't seen it, they would not be aware of its presence - hence reasonable to speculate that it might have been a cause here. He isn't attributing blame - he's just drawing attention to a possible cause.

What logic? You mean some peoples 'common sense' is what you are saying, we know exactly where common sense and suchlike have gotten us, that isn't logic and without evidence is meaningless, please if you can come up with some hard evidence to explain your 'logic' and that of the coroner I'm all ears if you pardon the pun.

[Bez]

After many years on a bike I'm still broadly at a loss to understand (a) what the audible difference is between a vehicle that's about to hit you from behind and a vehicle that isn't and (b) how people think they can react such that they will affect the outcome of that particular lottery.

I relate fully and completely to the notion of being uncomfortable with not being able to hear vehicles approaching from behind, but I still struggle to see how it affects danger beyond any negligible degree. If someone's going to dive into the back of you, you're screwed, and that's that. It's the one thing I fear, for that very reason.

[PhilWhitehurst]

Portable music players and headphones in the EU are limited to 85dB. If they can produce more (Max 101dB) then there must be audible and visible warnings and the user MUST override to confirm going to a higher volume. A truck is about 90dB so about twice as loud. Is anyone seriously suggesting even with a player at max volume (without overriding) in the EU can't hear a truck of that size?

[AlaninWales]

..........
Ahh yes, the problem of the Invisible Cyclists. I call rubbish on that one and to illustrate my point, someone else's vid: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b8pX52v_yNA&index=68&list=LLxh0QwWxK6TvHL4CF7hf0Tg

What is that supposed to show? He was clearly visible. The van driver was a prat.
I had a camouflaged cyclist the other day - barely visible - he was coming down a sun and shadowy country lane towards me - the background was either blackish or shades of green, he was wearing black clothes with a green stripe. He probably thought the green was higher vis but infact worked as camouflage. Plenty of room so no prob.

Can you really tell from the sound of a vehicle, whether it is on a collision course? That's a super-sense right there!

No of course you can't. But if a vehicle is approaching one way or another it's better to know rather than not. Any more stupid questions?

If you have any doubts just have a go riding with ear plugs.

The coroner SPECULATED that the wearing of headphone MAY have been a contributory factor.

Seems fair comment to me. We will never know.

PS I know what it's like since a started losing my hearing. You are pedalling a long a quiet road and all of a sudden a huge vehicle appears by your side overtaking, which you simply hadn't been aware of. You also lose judgement of sound distances (with hearing aids) and can be alarmed by sound of something which is safe distance away.
Extra caution and extra looking over the shoulder - all the time.
To choose not to hear (by wearing earphones etc) is insane. I don't suppose it'll be banned - not many people do it - most have enough sense to work it out for themselves.

I have another question (which you will no doubt consider stupid): If you cannot (as you say and I agree) determine where a vehicle is from the sound, are you not better off just looking (in which case the sound is irrelevant)?

[AlaninWales]

After many years on a bike I'm still broadly at a loss to understand (a) what the audible difference is between a vehicle that's about to hit you from behind and a vehicle that isn't and (b) how people think they can react such that they will affect the outcome of that particular lottery.

I relate fully and completely to the notion of being uncomfortable with not being able to hear vehicles approaching from behind, but I still struggle to see how it affects danger beyond any negligible degree. If someone's going to dive into the back of you, you're screwed, and that's that. It's the one thing I fear, for that very reason.

But Bez, it is obviously better to know than not! And asking what benefit there is in hearing (as I have) the screech of brakes as someone suddenly notices you in front of them in broad daylight is (apparently) a "stupid question" (well it is when I say it, he just ignores you!).

[ossie]

And yet, loads of people who criticise listeners wear fat straps in front of their ears that cause lots of wind noise.

Perhaps the most ridiculous post I've ever read on here.

Why? Do you think wind rushing over thick straps is always silent?

Thick straps ...are you being serious? A properly fitted helmet will have close fitting straps...they are certainly not thick and they don't contribute enough wind noise to block out traffic noise...pathetic excuse to divert a thread from the real subject in question.

I thought this place was the last bastion of sanity, clearly efforts are being made to change this.

[ossie]

double post