Cycling UK Forum

I'll do what I should have done sooner and start a new thread on this. (This was previously posted on the "Fog" thread).

It isn't illegal to wear headphones while cycling, but according to a recent law case, you might be found negligent for handicapping your hearing so you can't hear clearly, for example a verbal warning from a race marshall. The case itself had several issues, and there's a longer exposition here of all the points:
http://thecyclingsilk.blogspot.com/2011 ... brent.html

And here's my rather shorter summary, focusing on the headphones issue.

A cyclist wearing headphones collided, as he turned left, with a cyclist who was on the wrong side of the road approaching the junction; the latter was participating in a road race. The cyclist with the headphones was given explicit verbal warning of the approaching racers by a race marshall, but failed to act on the warning, because he didn't gather what was being said to him. The judge explicitly did not find him negligent for wearing the headphones - cyclists are merely exhorted not to wear headphones and not to use mobile phones in government publicity, much as they might exhort us to be responsible in other ways, rather than being legally required not to. But it was negligent to fail to act on the warnings of the race marshall. So, in other words, if he had impeded his hearing so much, be it the headphones, or the volume of the music, or whatever, then that is his problem. In consequence, he was found 1/3 responsible for the accident. (The cyclist on the wrong side of the road approaching a junction was 2/3 responsible. The fact of taking part in a race does not absolve you from proper behaviour when the race takes place on roads still open to the public.)

Edited for clarity.

Who was on the wrong side of the road, and were there police outriders?

Ayesha wrote:Who was on the wrong side of the road, and were there police outriders?

The racing cyclist was on the wrong side of the road, to facilitate taking the bend at speed.

The race had broken up into a number of small groups and isolated riders, etc, and there was no police protection at that moment, if indeed there was any at all.

I frequently ride with headphones and never had a problem... (realise that this in itself is a rubbish argument). The trick is to use the older / cheaper in ear style as they don't block out the outside world - I can comfortably hear the radio and what's going on around me - certainly more than I can hear within the car.

Yes, for our own safety, we need to hear what's happening around us but all other transport types rely mostly on visual cues (sign posts, road markings, traffic lights, indicators etc) for direction and notices. In fact higher end cars make a point about cutting out as much of the outside world as possible. Why should bikes, in legal terms, be treated differently?

I don't know the details of this situation but assume that, had it been a car, the Marshall would flag down the car, tap on his window, or put up a sign to notify the driver. I doubt he'd shout at a passing car and expect him to hear. Or a motorcyclist with a helmet on. Or a bus driver.

hungrydave wrote:Why should bikes, in legal terms, be treated differently?

Cyclists themselves are legally required to be able give an audible warning of their approach, and a bell, which a car driver can't usually hear, is considered adequate; indeed shouting would appear adequate, though I'm not aware of whether this has been tested in court. I often shout in a situation requiring quick reaction, as it is so much quicker. We conclude this audible warning is mainly there for communicating with pedestrians and other cyclists. So I think there is a legal presumption that cyclists should participate in a world of audible warnings, and of lower volume than the horns motorised vehicles use. Of course it is not illegal for the hearing impaired to cycle, pedestrianise, or drive, nor are they required to use any aids when they do. But no doubt deaf pedestrians and cyclists become accustomed to checking things more carefully with their eyes, rather than stepping out in front of cyclists without looking, as so many pedestrians do, often failing to realise the extent to which they are drawing conclusions on the basis of what their ears didn't hear.

http://thecyclingsilk.blogspot.com/2011 ... brent.html explains the case. (The OP has a bad link.)

Mr Brown passed signs and marshals, and didn't hear the marshals. He turned left into a road "too fast for the circumstances". He encountered a racing cyclist who was on the wrong side of the road and also travelling too fast.

It seems to me that the damages were reduced for Mr Brown not for the headphones as such, but because he wasn't paying attention. This didn't make the accident his fault, but if he had paid attention it wouldn't have happened or would have been less severe.

I can empathise with that. My only severe bike accident was because I wasn't paying attention. As no one else was involved, it was entirely my own fault.

Over here, race marshals have no right to interfere with normal road traffic, but are responsible rather for the behaviour of race participants. An ordinary "civilian" cyclist is normal traffic: the marshal would be out of order in interfering with his progress rather than holding up the race to let him through.

In practice they do exactly the opposite unless there's a peeler in the neighbourhood.

I don't know the legal situation regarding headphones here, but I could imagine that the marshal, the president of the organizing club, and the rider who was on the wrong side of the road would be held responsible. If it is illegal, the other cyclist might be done for wearing phones as a separate offence.

Heh... trying to look up French headphone law on Google is a can of worms. Headphones = casque in French and casque = helmet. If you look up écouteurs instead, clever Google says to itself "ahah, écouteurs = casque" and gives you much the same result.

Suppose the cyclist did not have earphones but was hard of hearing / deaf. Judging by the noise in many a cyclists' cafe there are a lot of them hard of hearing.
Could they also be negligent for not hearing marshall's instructions?

As i have posted previously i have been involved in 2 low speed collisions with "podestrians" .
Distressing for all parties event though there where no phyisical injuries.
Cyclists with head phones scare me...
To delibratly reduce your spatial awareness on roads with traffic ...why??? ...
Or is this a Darwin Awards moment...
The law is an ass but common sense on the road surely counts ...

....so deaf people should say off the roads ....

yakdiver wrote:....so deaf people should say off the roads ....

That isn't the lesson I take from Martin Porter's analysis.

The lesson isn't "Don't wear headphones." The lesson is "pay attention".

Like anyone, I've had problems with pedestrians paying more attention to whatever they have stuck in their ears than the traffic. Or fiddling with phones, possibly texting, with no headphones at all. Or reading something.

Likewise, when I've caused problems, they have been because I wasn't paying attention. I'd like to listen to Radio 4 when I ride but I suspect that would distract me dangerously. Not because I couldn't hear things, but because I'd be distracted.

Perhaps every time the words "headphones" or "helmet" appears in a thread title, a flag could be arranged indicating how recently it was last discussed ...

Why do correspondants insist on bringing deaf people into this argument .. sorry discussion!
The thread is; "Wearing headphones while cycling."
Not should deaf people be on bicycles.
Get with the programme...

Headphone wearers should get one of these instead:

http://www.aldi.co.uk/uk/html/offers/sp ... _20827.htm

Alex L wrote:Headphone wearers should get one of these instead:

http://www.aldi.co.uk/uk/html/offers/sp ... _20827.htm

Good gawd .. don't start a trend ! I believe public transport is plagued with this sort of thing with loud-speaking mobile 'phones ...