Well, based on some of the other posts you've made, I'd have to say that your opinion that safe cycling doesn't require you to use your ears is .... utter hogwash.

I can't comment on what driving in London is like, as I'm on the west coast of Canada in Vancouver. I can absolutely talk about driving here, though. We have a lot of 'bad' drivers AND our share of awful bike couriers in the downtown core.

What I do know is that when I commute on my bike, my ears are vital to my - and others' - safety. Yes, we should all shoulder check and make eye contact with drivers, but we can also avoid a lot of problems as we hear things coming up behind us on either side.

What's worse about this post, is that you seem to have this superiority complex in saying that you need your tunes to make the cycling slog more bearable, so it doesn't really matter if your ears would make you safer.

Trust me, it rains just as much in Vancouver as London and our winter weather tends to be colder. I don't believe for a minute that my need for entertainment as I ride takes precedence over the expectation of those I share the road with, that I'll be in possession of all my faculties when riding.

I fully agree with James from Vancouver. The idea that impairing your hearing won't put you at increased risk in traffic is 'utter hogwash'. I've been cycle commuting for somewhere around 30 years, including 6 years in central London. There's no way I'd contemplate cycling with headphones; I benefit enormously from being able to hear what is going on around me and being able to anticipate, for example, the wash effect of being overtaken by a heavy truck. James Daley - I'm very glad that you haven't had an accident caused by impaired hearing for the past 3 years. But let's not suggest that this is evidence of the safety of listening to headphones while cycling. The risks of cycling in traffic can be over-played - the fact is the chances of having an accident while cycling are generally very low. However, the consequences to the cyclist of being involved in an accident can be grave indeed. For this reason, I, like many other cyclists, err on the side of caution and minimise the risk. I state this, but you may not be listening....

James Daley you are a walking testament to the stupidity, short-sightedness and self-righteous attitudes of cyclists in London today.

I have lost track of the number of iPod sporting cyclists who think nothing of running red lights, cycling on pavements and ignoring the rules of the road that were set up for their own safety in the first place.

Whilst I can see that you think the occasional accident and three years of otherwise trouble free commuting is a fair trade, what I can see - and what countless others can also see - is the rest of the London traffic slamming on their brakes and swerving to avoid collisions whilst you potter off into the distance, humming along to the music.

Not only should there be a law against music whilst cycling, there should be fines and arrests. You use the same roads as motorists. You should be subject to the same code.

I still remember an experience as a plucky young 18 year old, cycling to university. I had my big walkman cassette player, big foam headphones and a gleaming set of wheels. Then a car came from nowhere and nearly wiped me out. The truth is, cars don't come from nowhere and I would have heard it coming if I didn't have headphones on.

I'm now mid thirties (is that middle aged these days??) and commute 10 miles each way to Belfast every day. I can't understand people who do this with headphones on.

It's reassuring to hear a bus or lorry behind you before bracing yourself for the wake.

I think your advice on eye contact is spot on. I couldn't agree more. Your safety record with headphones however appears to me to be a happy coincidence. Long may it continue, but you gotta open your ears.

"Not only should there be a law against music whilst cycling, there should be fines and arrests. You use the same roads as motorists. You should be subject to the same code".

Wow Conor, I didn't know it was illegal to listen to music while driving!!!

Or maybe it's not, and in fact what you're suggesting is that cyclists should be subject to additional restrictions over and above those of drivers. That would be proportionate given the amount of people we kill or seriously injure.

I don't cycle with headphones on myself and probably wouldn't, but I have some sympathy with the argument that it is OK.

Compared with a car driver who is insulated from the noise by glass and metal, has their own engine and road noise always close by, and who may well be playing music.

They might not be identical, but it is awkward argument to say one is safe and the other is dangerous.

Conor - thanks for your measured comments.
I'm not sure that there's much of a link between cyclists that wear ipods, and those that jump red lights and ride on pavements.
As I mentioned in my column, I keep my music quiet enough so I can hear some of the noise from the road - much the same as motorists who listen to music in their cars.

I have a 40 minute cycle commute each way and find that too long not to have something to listen to. I go for a compromise and have radio in one ear. That way I am not too bored but can still hear traffic noise perfectly well.

In traffic, all you can hear is just general traffic rumble anyway. That and the occasional 'foompf foompf foomph' of a lowered and body-kitted corsa trying to squeeze past you. And i've been known to ride with an mp3 player on, and i can still hear the traffic... In my car though, with its own engine noise, insulation and radio, i can't hear other traffic at all. But that seems to be acceptable..?

Nobody has mentioned the case last year where a cyclist died in a road accident and the coroner commented that she had been partly to blame for listening to an MP3.

Comments drawing parallels with listening to the radio or music in the car are not very helpful. When I am in the car, I am travelling at the same speed as the other traffic, and am protected by the bodywork. I also have a rear view mirror so know what is behind. On a bike, I am slower, have less protection, and no mirror. So I prefer to use all my senses to be safe. My ears tell me a little about what is behind without the distraction of turning my head in the middle of traffic.

With my ears uncluttered, I can hear the fire engine/police car/ ambulance siren and plan my strategy for evasion. Sirens are one sound that motorists should be able to hear (but often don't). I can hear what is behind and gauge to some extent how close it is, and sometimes plan evasion.

Sometimes, as a motorist, I see a cyclist with earphones who is clearly unaware of traffic; maybe they would be behaving in the same way with or without the music, but I suspect that often the music/radio does distract them and make them more of a liability on the road.

So, James, I don't think that you are behaving as sensibly as you ought. I hope that you don't have an accident because of your choice, but I don't think that you have properly considered every aspect of your actions.

James, James, James... and you seemed like such a nice boy too! I bet you wish you hadn't brought up this hoary old theme! At least once a year at Tokyo Cycling Club (Tokyocycle.com) in the more genteel part of the world where I commute, someone lights up a thread on this subject only to be howled down by all concerned just like you.

Let me just say this. You are a smart lad and a good cyclist I am sure, but you KNOW that cycling with the headphones on is naughty. You just want to justify it somehow. If so, you need to find another way to defend the indefensible rather than try and tell the readers of a major newspaper that cycling without a major sense function makes you 'a better cyclist'. Ergo, having a sense of hearing makes one a worse cyclist? Tell us it ain't so, dear James.

Time to wake up my friend, doff the 'phones and cease to drink from the Kool Aid of Iniquity before you hit the keyboard again.

So I guess most of the posters so far would ban deaf people from using bicycles, cars and PTWs?

"Nobody has mentioned the case last year where a cyclist died in a road accident and the coroner commented that she had been partly to blame for listening to an MP3."

What an absolutely disgraceful example to use. Patricia Macmillan was killed by a turning HGV, the media and the coroner managed to blame her iPod. You are obviously as much of an idiot as the coroner.

I have listened to an ipod at full volume while cycling in london and it really didn't make much of a difference to what I could hear of the traffic noise. I stopped though as it is terribly unsociable - surely one of the joys of London commuting is the regular chats you have with fellow cyclists. Sealing yourself off from the outside world and other people is what car drivers do.

"I'm not sure that there's much of a link between cyclists that wear ipods, and those that jump red lights and ride on pavements"

Really?

Perhaps I'm basing my argument on what I witness every single day. I could show you, but I'm not convinced you'd hear me...

"As I mentioned in my column, I keep my music quiet enough so I can hear some of the noise from the road - much the same as motorists who listen to music in their cars"

Ever tried driving a car with headphones on? Yes, it's a very dangerous thing to even contemplate. Your spacial awareness is reduced below a reactionary level. That's why it's illegal.

--

"Or maybe it's not, and in fact what you're suggesting is that cyclists should be subject to additional restrictions over and above those of drivers"

Well, as cyclists on London roads don't have any form of regulated restriction, then absolutley! Couldn't've put it better myself. Thanks Michael.

"as cyclists on London roads don't have any form of regulated restriction, then absolutley! Couldn't've put it better myself. Thanks Michael."
I have no idea what you mean by this. We are subject to traffic laws (enforcement of which for all users is patchy. I'd be delighted if it were better and more drivers got done for using a phone/not wearing a seatbelt/not bothering to secure their children).
Also Conor, please check other people's names before posting.

I was looking for info on whether it was illegal to wear phones while cycling when I spotted this blog. As a keen cyclist for 40 years who currently wears an ipod while cycling I tend to agree with James Daley.

I use the 'lifesaver' before changing direction and this has served me well over the years as a cyclist (and motorcyclist and motorist). The only accidents I've ever had with other vehicles have involved doors being opened on me or the notorious left turn after overtaking me. In both situations I am already aware of the vehicle's presence.

I think phones at a reasonable volume don't pose much of a risk compared to the other risks that are an inescapable part of the cycling experience and indeed, life generally. Isn't that why we ride or am I the only one that gets a buzz from taking risks? After all a bicycle or motorcycle is an inherently risky mode of transport but repays us in a way that car drivers of all but the most expensive sports models can ever imagine.

PS I never ever ignore amber or red lights or ride on the pavement/sidewalk but it's true that you see a lot who do. On the other hand, in recent years I see lots of motorists who ignore red lights.

I think it is a very interesting argument and in my opinion should be left up to the cyclist. Yes it impairs your hearing but as discussed you can't always rely on your hearing. Also there are plenty of car drivers (myself included) who have driven with the music so loud tha they can't hear the road around them, what is the difference? Well in a car I am far less likely to die than if I was hit on my bike.

Let the individual choose and deal with the consequences of those choices.

So those who are deaf or have impaired hearing should not be allowed to cycle on the roads?

People who are deaf or HOH don't have a choice about whether to use all 5 senses or not for safety while riding. While we may not be able to hear things coming, many people who are deaf from birth or a young age have developed a heightened sense of feeling so we can use vibration to "hear" things coming up from behind. If you know anything about sign language, you will know that it is understood with peripheral vision as you make eye contact with the person you are "talking" to. So deaf people who have been using sign language for the majority of their lives also have more highly developed peripheral vision than hearing people do.

The fact that you are willingly choosing to reduce your senses and level of safety on the road to the amount of someone with a disability (without having any extra ability to feel vibrations or see in your periphery) makes you look pretty foolish, as well as ungrateful for what you have. I know that if I could use hearing to help me be safer on the road (for myself and for others), I would take any amount that I could get.

Well I'm happy taking what I assess to be reasonable risks. I'm fed up being told I can't do this or that because I might hurt myself.

We aren't allowed to change a light bulb at work. Our Health & Safety people have decreed an electrician must do it in case someone is injured. I can imagine the uproar if government applied similar constraints to driving cars/motorcycles/bicycles. Everyone would have to have a degree in mechanical engineering before they'd be allowed on the road!

I agree with most of the original article. I ride 34 miles each day through the centre of Edinburgh and do it all with headphones on. If I was struck deaf today I wouldn't change anything about the way I ride and would still feel just as safe.

As far as I am aware, deaf people do not possess any kind of superhuman "vibration sense" which would compensate for having to look around you on the bike (the *only* way to ride fast and safe).

I use my eyes (imagine that!) to check when it's safe to change position and wouldn't just pull out because I can't hear anything!. On the other hand, I often notice cyclists without headphones seem to ride more erratically when I am approaching to overtake, apparently assuming that because they can't hear me I'm not there!

Safer indeed!?!?

Although I can understand that people may feel safer being able to hear the traffic around them, and that's fine, I can't imagine that being able to hear the HGV turning across you, crushing you as it does so, is much consolation!

To blame that on headphones is truly obscene - akin to blaming a pedestrian wearing headphones for being crushed by a drunk-driver who mounted the kerb!