Remember kids... always wear a helmet. (The almighty bikeradar helmet thread)

Ed just because you do fine on the road with little or no hearing it doesn't automatically tally that we'd all benefit from restricted audio awareness surely? That said, you are very probably a fine example of the vehement argument against headphones being a little daft. Not least because every other road user has restricted hearing due to car windows, motorcycle helmets, engine noise and stereos etc.

No it's not, in fact I'd encourage it if it force them to be more aware.

Yeah.
And they should wear blindfolds too.
With their hands tied.

Stand back folks - it's SuperAwareMan

I don't think that cyclists should use headphones or ear phones while cycling. I have had a few occasions where I have almost been taken off my bike by people cycling with them who have not heard me shout warnings. That said, more worrying is that people driving vehicles should do so with their windows closed and music blaring. Indeed, these days, many drivers choose to wear earphones while driving. I once witnessed a truck running over a cyclist. Dozens of people were screaming at the driver who ploughed on oblivious to his actions, windows closed and probably listening to some music.

Handsfree is cheap, but ineffective. The greater problem with phoning while driving is not the physical act of holding the handset, but the mental distraction of trying to hold a conversation with a distant party.

I was shocked to discover that Norwegian law merely states that you must'nt be holding the phone in your hand while driving. So if you have your phone on your lap while texting, thats fine.

The irony is, that spotting a handset in a drivers hand is the one thing that has allowed me to aviod nasty collisions on more than one occasion.

where's your data for that Ed? or are you just spouting shite you've heard others say?

Wayne old lad, it's basically what Cycle Training usually teach you to be more aware of your surrounding, to look back more often than to rely on your hearing.

listening to music from your iPod is very different to holding a conversation, since you're blocking outside noise, what would you do to compensate for the lack of noise?

I'm not saying that people who wear iPod and the like are always good at riding, the same as people who can hear everything but still ride terribly.

Considering it wasn't true when James was spouting that bollocks some years back it's hardly likely to have become so since then.

and where did cycle training get their data from? At best I'd suggest they use it as an example of how different senses can be utilised in very much the same way as you'd blindfold someone to show how taste can be heightened.

Are you explicitly saying [because all your posts on this load of tosh suggest you are] that the Cycle training bods recommend you wear headphones all the time?

Ed, you've got the point slightly wrong. Cycle trainers want to encourage people to look more rather than listen. If their hearing is blocked, they can't help but look more. Now, while it is possible to conduct an experiment on this by blocking someone's hearing, it is still not desirable to obstruct one of the senses. The point is just that looking is far more important than relying on hearing.

Isn't that precisely the point I was making Oliver?

No, it's not. You said you'd encourage cycling with headphones on.

You cannot hear things around you as well with headphones and anyone who cycles in london with them on is nuts.

No it's not, in fact **I'd encourage it **if it force them to be more aware.

As I said, it's an interesting experiment, but it isn't desirable to block a sense. 'If it forced them to be more aware'--what you mean is 'they should look more', but artificially 'forcing' them to do it isn't a good way of doing that. The aim of training should be that they learn to do it without being 'forced'. It shouldn't be 'enocuraged'. It can be used didactically, to demonstrate a point, but not as a constant practice (for hearing people).

If it make them more aware of their surrounding, then I'd encourage it.

If not, obviously not.

Dozy buggers who wear headphones and are innattentive cyclists != wearing headphones makes you a dozy innattentive bugger.

I often wear open backed headphones when cycling. Haven't felt any less aware of what's around me when I do. In a busy urban center like London with tall, hard surfaced buildings around it's hard to tell where stuff is coming from anyway compared to being out in the sticks.

The people I'm worried about are those that never look around themselves, headphones or not.

Ed, you've got the point slightly wrong. Cycle trainers want to encourage people to look more rather than listen. If their hearing is blocked, they can't help but look more. Now, while it is possible to conduct an experiment on this by blocking someone's hearing, it is still not desirable to obstruct one of the senses. The point is just that looking is far more important than relying on hearing.

This.

In my opinion (based on my own experience) too many pedestrians and cyclists rely on hearing in favour of proper observation. I'm always surprised at how many people I see on my commute who pull out to overtake another cyclist (or a parked car) without even looking behind them. Most cyclists are near silent, and more and more cars on the road are electric/hybrid that are near silent.

Mind you, some of the people riding like twats and pulling out without listening have got headphones on; so it's not as if it is a magic pill to make people look behind more.

Wearing headphones whilst cycling certainly made me realise I wasn't doing enough rear observations (I thought it had been drummed into me from years of riding a motorbike*) as I often surprised by something coming past me that I hadn't seen. I'm currently in a phase of not wearing headphones whilst commuting, I may need to try it again soon to see how I'm doing.

Some people obviously don't have a problem with such a lack of awareness.

• and I always wore earplugs when riding a motorbike as the wind noise at 70mph (and above) is bloody loud.
  

I used to wear headphones when downhill racing, kept the buzz flowing with a few choice tunes when ripping through a forest area at seemingly ludicrous speeds just worked. Trees don't move, and particularly on race days when the track is roped off, you have nothing to worry about butu the odd falling leaf and the odd dog not attached to a leash..... keeps the attention when they break loose when you hit an 8 foot drop off a little over 40 mph!

In the city, I just can't wear headphones, I don't feel like I'm aware enough when tuned in and potentially put myself at risk when I get into the music bubble. Things like looking back, you just forget to do frequently enough as you're looking forward humming to Duke Wellington or whatever.

Apparently though, Helmets WILL save your life. A guy stops at the head of the queue near Tavistock Place cycle lane heading for TCR. Massive queue of bikes, so he swerves the queue and sits in the road, clearly an obstruction to traffic turning from the right, or coming from across teh junction. I pointed out his potential dalliance with death/road rage/shit road position - Me ' You know what'll happen if a car comes round that corner right?'
Position Genius ' Yeah, I can hop on the kerb if I need to, but I've got a helmet on, I'm perfectly safe'. Yep, Helmets can save your life even when you position yourself in the most ridiculous part of the road.

#standsinroadwithhelmetreadytotakeonabussinglehandedly

Can we stop this derail and get back on the topic of why anyone who does not wear a helmet should be taken outside and shot please

Headphones thread>>>>>>>>>>>>http://www.lfgss.com/thread1014.html

Just about to contribute a virtually meaningless bit of info to this thread.

Last week I happened to be first(ish) on the scene to four cycle accidents. None of these involved vehicles.

1) Forum member dropping into huge pot hole, very heavy impact with damage to steel bike. No helmet, no head impact...just a few scrapes to elbow and hip. LUCKY.

2) Cyclist riding into back of another cyclist who swerved out whilst talking on her phone. Cyclist on first bike stayed on and rode off. Cyclist who ran into her hit head on floor, was wearing helmet and was fine.

3) Cyclist T-Boned a car turning off road through traffic. I saw car turning from some distance, car was obscured from cyclist by vehicles. I shouted warning, cyclist didn't hear. Cyclist had ipod on. Cyclist head impacted with car, wearing helmet, no major injuries.

4) Cyclist (iPod in, helmet on) jumped red light, looked left, didn't see oncoming car. Car dropped the anchors, cyclist saw car at last minute and swerved out of the way causing her to fall off. Head hit floor, lots of scraping to helmet, no other injuries.

Its not possible to say whether helmet wearing and/or headphone use had any influence on these accidents and thats why this thread is 83 pages long. Read into these as you will but I've started wearing a helmet again and never ride with 'phones in because I know that hearing has saved me from crashes (as a last resort sense) on a few occasions.

One cycle trainer on the forum recently told me "If you are using your hearing, you're doing it wrong". This is bollocks.

If you are relying on your hearing you are doing it wrong. If personally find that hearing what is going around me (including squeaky drivetrains of people undertaking me) supplements my visual awareness from my regular shoulder checks etc.

http://www.thetimes.co.uk/tto/public/cyclesafety/article3495439.ece

I'm sure this article is a repost but in a sample size of 100 fatalities, it was deemed that 10% to 16% may have been avoided if a helmet was worn.

I understand the general public health benefit debate entirely but my personal view is that 10 to 16 of those 100 cyclists may still be alive if helmet wearing was compulsory.

Can't believe I'm back in this thread. I'm just getting thoroughly pissed off with the lack of personal responsibility that I see some cyclists take. Its illegal to drive a car with headphones in for good reason so why should cylists do it?

Pretty poor article. If you want to get proper numbers and research, go to http://www.cyclehelmets.org/.

Any chance you could be more specific as to why it is a poor article?

For what its worth, I don't think helmet wearing should be compulsory but I think people should strongly be encouraged to protect themselves from the circumstances in which they are helpful.

Any chance you could be more specific as to why it is a poor article?

The usual stuff ... the problem is that 'the roads are dangerously designed' when the focus should be much more on driver behaviour (which, to be fair, is mentioned, but its significance is not understood). 'Equally, however, no safety campaigners would ever seek actively to discourage the use of helmets'--not true. Some do. Relying too heavily on that DfT report doesn't adequately address the vast body of research that's been conducted and presents some opinions in an unacceptable way. It gives numbers for the 'pro' side but not for the 'con' side, a frequent trick of helmet advocates. Plus a few other points that it would take too long to explain.

Fair enough, I see what you're getting at.

I just wish the safety campaigners would split their resources equally between road changes, driver behaviour and cyclist behaviour. Each have their own problems and need their own plan of attack to change.

When I started wearing a helmet again a few weeks ago I did, for about twenty minutes, feel like I was much safer...a little insight into why some say wearing a helmet makes cyclists take more risks etc etc.

My biggest problem with that is (a) it's an estimate, and (b) whilst those 10-16 cyclists may still be alive, around 40% less people would be cycling. The injury level wouldn't be going down either.

It's also a classic example of victim blaming. Drivers are. in most cases** to blame in accidents involving cyclists, how many of those 10-16 cyclists would have been alive if the car driver was doing what they were supposed to be doing?

Rather than trying to put a sticky plaster over the issue of poor driving hurting cyclists, we should be looking to address the root issue. That the laws that are already in place to protect cyclists and other vunerable road users (including pedestrians) are not being enforced, leading to a more dangerous environment for all of us. Rather than pushing for helmet compulsion or segregation, should we not be pushing for a greater enforcement of the laws that are already in place to protect us?just

*Based on my understanding of the %changes following helmet compusion in Australia as I understand it
**Don't have the figures to hand at the second, but I think it was something like 70%driver and 20% cyclist error, with the missing 10% being a bit of both.

n.b. It doesn't follow that of those 10-16 riders, that 70/20% blame split would work, so you can't say for example that 7-13 of those killed whilst not wearing a helmet were killed due to poor driving. You just can't combine the studies.

Sorry for the rant, just trying to get this out of my system :)

Just had this response to my email of yesterday

Dear James,

Thank you for your comment about our recent news article "BIRT salutes GB Olympic Cyclists"

We entirely stand by our support for any move which will encourage people to wear cycle helmets. However we do not wish to add to any speculation about the sad death of Mr Harris and we have therefore removed any mention of his death from the article.

We will, however, continue to raise awareness about brain injury and the benefits of cycle helmets as we believe the evidence strongly supports this approach.

Regards,

Helen.

Helen Tridgell
Head of Marketing & Fundraising
The Disabilities Trust

They are still swerving on explaining their position on who else would benefit from helmets (such as pedestrians, car passengers etc).

Agreed, its a small sample size and does nothing to reflect injury rates.

The bottom line remains though that helmets, in some circumstances, reduce the risk of injury.

You say that laws in place to protect cyclists are not being enforced, you are spot on. Not just for drivers but also by cyclists. Mutual responsibility must be taken...its still illegal to RLJ. Its illegal for a car driver to wear headphones so why should cyclists be allowed to?

This debate should be devoid of discussion of blame. Its all about following the laws of the road in a responsible way and each individual making a choice about helmet use. The helmet debate is not in the best interests of cyclists. If you wear one, you ARE less likely to receive a head injury in some circumstances and this should be the focus of the message rather than the subtext.

I don't know whether this is true but I heard recently that cycling rates are returning to the levels that they were before the helmet law in Australia. Perhaps a short term hit on public health is worth it in the long run?

Go and talk to any A&E doctor and ask them about the sorts of head injuries they see with cyclists. They treat an awful lot of people for brain injuries from helmetless low speed accidents.