Yet Another Cycling Forum
General Category => Rides and Touring => Topic started by: quixoticgeek on 28 January, 2018, 05:45:54 pm
-
France has a stupid law banning the wearing of headphones whilst cycling (but you can turn the music volume in your 2 ton death box as loud as you like...).
Does anyone know if bone conducting headphones that don't cover your ears are covered by this ban?
Thanks
J
-
I suspect that, somewhat similar to the French breathalyser law, the statute is on the books but is likely to be almost universally ignored. The Gendarmes really do have much bigger fish to fry...
-
If they apply it to pedestrians I am all for it. Of course most headphones are used with mobile phones which as far as I know (but I could be wrong) are forbidden for all vehicles which might explain a part of the reasoning. Whether wearing an earpiece in one ear would still be against the law when used with for example a GPS might be debatable. There are much too many headphone wearers on the streets; it would be a good thing if there were a few less.
I am inclined to agree with Torslanda that it is unlikely (although not impossible) to be enforced - until you cross the flic who is down on quota for the month or needs the bonuses. However don't have an accident with écouteurs in your ears!
Do bicycle GPS systems have to be vocal recognition and no buttons while moving in Holland like the car systems? (I remember the dutch technician at NPK Holland explaining this to me 9 years ago. He couldn't use the GPS fitted in his Merc, had to have a second vocal one)
-
If they apply it to pedestrians I am all for it. Of course most headphones are used with mobile phones which as far as I know (but I could be wrong) are forbidden for all vehicles which might explain a part of the reasoning. Whether wearing an earpiece in one ear would still be against the law when used with for example a GPS might be debatable. There are much too many headphone wearers on the streets; it would be a good thing if there were a few less.
I cycle with headphones on pretty much for every ride. Usually I'm listening to podcasts or the radio. I find it makes me more aware of the world around me, stops me getting lost in thought. And being open headphones I can still hear cars coming up behind me.
Oh, and the french law on it is completely nuts. Until they also ban people from driving except with the windows open and the radio off, it's just victim blaming the cyclists.
But this thread wasn't supposed to be a wearing of headphones good or bad or not.
I am inclined to agree with Torslanda that it is unlikely (although not impossible) to be enforced - until you cross the flic who is down on quota for the month or needs the
bonuses. However don't have an accident with écouteurs in your ears!
Doesn't mean I want to risk it...
Do bicycle GPS systems have to be vocal recognition and no buttons while moving in Holland like the car systems? (I remember the dutch technician at NPK Holland explaining this to me 9 years ago. He couldn't use the GPS fitted in his Merc, had to have a second vocal one)
I'm not aware of that being the case for cars, or for bikes. I have a Wahoo Elemnt Bolt, I ride with it in Amsterdam, every day, never had an issue with it being button based, and it doesn't have voice recognition...
J
-
France has a stupid law banning the wearing of headphones whilst cycling (but you can turn the music volume in your 2 ton death box as loud as you like...).
Does anyone know if bone conducting headphones that don't cover your ears are covered by this ban?
Thanks
J
FWIW I don't see anything stupid about it. And the law on car stereos says that they shouldn't be audible outside the car or stop you hearing ordinary traffic noise. They're tightening up on it from 1st July on, too:
https://www.zinfos974.com/Tout-ce-qui-sera-interdit-en-voiture-au-1er-juillet-Et-ce-qu-il-vous-en-coutera-_a86974.html
But if you don't agree, you're perfectly welcome to argue with the flic who stops you. They enjoy a good discussion and are always glad to take instruction at the roadside.
-
When I tried using headphones in traffic the noise distracted me so I stopped. It was more my sense of balance than anything - I drive with music playing and have no problem (except Jeremy Vine can be irritating).
I suspect that, somewhat similar to the French breathalyser law, the statute is on the books but is likely to be almost universally ignored. The Gendarmes really do have much bigger fish to fry...
I'd be careful about assuming the breathalyser law is ignored. The Gendarmes have a habit of setting up random roadside checks. Some are all about breathalysing a large proportion of passing drivers, including me! Unnervingly, they also stare very carefully at your eyes which I believe is a crude check for drug abuse.
But if you don't agree, you're perfectly welcome to argue with the flic who stops you. They enjoy a good discussion and are always glad to take instruction at the roadside.
..and do let us know how you get on.
-
If there is a law and you break it knowingly however stupid you consider it to be, just take your punishment.
I happen to think that headphones whilst cycling is a little bit dangerous as inevitably the noise in your ears will block noise around you and could put you in danger. I have for instance lost count of the number of times that a vehicle overtaking me has taken me by surprise as it's noise was masked by a headwind.
-
If there is a law and you break it knowingly however stupid you consider it to be, just take your punishment.
Agreed. I may consider a law to be stupid, but I am asking so that I can make sure that I comply with it. Every nation has some stupid laws, you still have to comply.
I happen to think that headphones whilst cycling is a little bit dangerous as inevitably the noise in your ears will block noise around you and could put you in danger. I have for instance lost count of the number of times that a vehicle overtaking me has taken me by surprise as it's noise was masked by a headwind.
It works both ways. I find headphones+podcasts help me concentrate better, I can still hear stuff coming up behind me just fine. Each to their own, I'm not suggesting anyone else should or shouldn't we each choose.
I would just like to know if a certain style of headphones is legal in France when cycling.
J
-
Can't find the text of the law in question but here's a summary from Btwin:
Écouter de la musique en vélo ou porter aux oreilles tout dispositif susceptible d’émettre du son est passible d’une amende de 135 euros.
The operative words might be "aux oreilles". I suspect, though, that bone conduction phones, being in their vicinity, might also qualify.
-
I suspect that, somewhat similar to the French breathalyser law, the statute is on the books but is likely to be almost universally ignored. The Gendarmes really do have much bigger fish to fry...
I'd be careful about assuming the breathalyser law is ignored. The Gendarmes have a habit of setting up random roadside checks. Some are all about breathalysing a large proportion of passing drivers, including me! Unnervingly, they also stare very carefully at your eyes which I believe is a crude check for drug abuse.
I think Tors is probably referring to the law that says you must have an unused breathalyser device with you when you're operating a motor vehicle, not to roadside breath tests.
(I think it's either been repealed or is officially not enforced now, rather than simply being largely ignored.)
-
If they apply it to pedestrians I am all for it. Of course most headphones are used with mobile phones which as far as I know (but I could be wrong) are forbidden for all vehicles which might explain a part of the reasoning. Whether wearing an earpiece in one ear would still be against the law when used with for example a GPS might be debatable. There are much too many headphone wearers on the streets; it would be a good thing if there were a few less.
I cycle with headphones on pretty much for every ride. Usually I'm listening to podcasts or the radio. I find it makes me more aware of the world around me, stops me getting lost in thought. And being open headphones I can still hear cars coming up behind me.
That's interesting. I know for me it would be the opposite, especially a podcast; when driving I (used to) find speech radio quite distracting, the more interesting it was, the more distracted I was by it. Music is not so distracting – but it can induce a mood which isn't always conducive to good driving – but I find it much easier to put aside 'external' noises (from a speaker) than those from headphones. There has been some, but very little, research into the physical effects of cycling/driving with headphones (ie into what you can still hear – cycling with headphones found to be equivalent to driving with radio on and windows closed) but I'm not aware of any into the non-physical effects.
-
Right on cue...
http://road.cc/content/news/236335-dutch-study-using-headphones-negatively-affects-perception-sounds-crucial-safe
-
I suspect that, somewhat similar to the French breathalyser law, the statute is on the books but is likely to be almost universally ignored. The Gendarmes really do have much bigger fish to fry...
I'd be careful about assuming the breathalyser law is ignored. The Gendarmes have a habit of setting up random roadside checks. Some are all about breathalysing a large proportion of passing drivers, including me! Unnervingly, they also stare very carefully at your eyes which I believe is a crude check for drug abuse.
I think Tors is probably referring to the law that says you must have an unused breathalyser device with you when you're operating a motor vehicle, not to roadside breath tests.
(I think it's either been repealed or is officially not enforced now, rather than simply being largely ignored.)
Yes there was a law and it did get repealed. When the high vis tabard carrying law came in every supermarket had them on sale. When the breathalyser kit law came in I never saw one on sale anywhere. It wasn't a very clever idea.
-
I suspect that, somewhat similar to the French breathalyser law, the statute is on the books but is likely to be almost universally ignored. The Gendarmes really do have much bigger fish to fry...
I'd be careful about assuming the breathalyser law is ignored. The Gendarmes have a habit of setting up random roadside checks. Some are all about breathalysing a large proportion of passing drivers, including me! Unnervingly, they also stare very carefully at your eyes which I believe is a crude check for drug abuse.
I think Tors is probably referring to the law that says you must have an unused breathalyser device with you when you're operating a motor vehicle, not to roadside breath tests.
(I think it's either been repealed or is officially not enforced now, rather than simply being largely ignored.)
Yes there was a law and it did get repealed. When the high vis tabard carrying law came in every supermarket had them on sale. When the breathalyser kit law came in I never saw one on sale anywhere. It wasn't a very clever idea.
Not surprising that you didn't see them on sale openly, I think that they were in chemists (not sure as my wife bought them for our two cars) but the demand exceeded supply by quite a big margin. What killed the law I think was the fact that the kits could not be kept in a parked car in the summer because the temperatures exceeded the permitted storage temperature for the device - that and it was shown that a certain minister had links to one of the only two companies worldwide making the approved kits. Oh and you were supposed to have two kits, otherwise you would no longer be legal if you actually used one! On the whole a pointless exercice (except for the certain minister who did very well on his stock options!) - and better abandoned.
-
I think Tors is probably referring to the law that says you must have an unused breathalyser device with you when you're operating a motor vehicle, not to roadside breath tests.
(I think it's either been repealed or is officially not enforced now, rather than simply being largely ignored.)
I had completely forgotten about that one. I just looked it up: initially there was a fine of 11€ for not having one, then the fine was dropped. The law is due to be abrogated in the near future.
Since it applied to motorized vehicles irrespective of wheel count, electric bikes would have come under it.
-
Right on cue...
http://road.cc/content/news/236335-dutch-study-using-headphones-negatively-affects-perception-sounds-crucial-safe
Interesting that teenagers were not affected. Perhaps because they are more used to wearing headphones? Or because they are better at processing multiple inputs? Or simply they don't have such bad hearing as older people?
-
France has a stupid law banning the wearing of headphones whilst cycling (but you can turn the music volume in your 2 ton death box as loud as you like...).
Does anyone know if bone conducting headphones that don't cover your ears are covered by this ban?
Thanks
J
This law is not specific for cyclists. It just stipulates that you're not allowed to wear headphones in traffic. Primarily it's targeted at mobile phone use while driving a car.
Since cyclists are considered traffic in France, the traffic laws apply.
In reality, wearing a hardly visible earpod won't attract attention or just a simple request to stash it away. Wearing all ear enveloping headphones might lead to a harsher reaction from the plod.
At night no-one will see what you have in your ear anyway.
-
Right on cue...
http://road.cc/content/news/236335-dutch-study-using-headphones-negatively-affects-perception-sounds-crucial-safe
The idea that using headphones affects your perception of external sounds seems uncontroversial enough.
What the study doesn’t show is that perception of external sounds is ‘crucial for safe cycling’. That seems to be an assumption.
-
Right on cue...
http://road.cc/content/news/236335-dutch-study-using-headphones-negatively-affects-perception-sounds-crucial-safe
Interesting that teenagers were not affected. Perhaps because they are more used to wearing headphones? Or because they are better at processing multiple inputs? Or simply they don't have such bad hearing as older people?
Or that headphones made no discernable difference, but not in a good way.
-
..
Not surprising that you didn't see them on sale openly, I think that they were in chemists (not sure as my wife bought them for our two cars) but the demand exceeded supply by quite a big margin. What killed the law I think was the fact that the kits could not be kept in a parked car in the summer because the temperatures exceeded the permitted storage temperature for the device - that and it was shown that a certain minister had links to one of the only two companies worldwide making the approved kits. Oh and you were supposed to have two kits, otherwise you would no longer be legal if you actually used one! On the whole a pointless exercice (except for the certain minister who did very well on his stock options!) - and better abandoned.
Must admit that was a law I ignored as did my neighbours. As Torslanda says, the headphones law may also be ignored but perhaps only until it becomes something to be relied on in court.
(Another reason why the breathalyser law was stupid is that it suggests you can have a drink and then drive even tho' there was sense in testing yourself the morning after (but then why keep it in the car?))
-
(Another reason why the breathalyser law was stupid is that it suggests you can have a drink and then drive even tho' there was sense in testing yourself the morning after (but then why keep it in the car?))
What made the breathalyser law so unworkable was that you were required to have 2 unused units in the car. So you go out for dinner, you think maybe I should double check I'm ok to drive. So you take out one of your 2 units, test yourself, get an OK that you're sober enough to drive, only to then not be legally able to as you don't have 2 unused units in the car... Which is a bit... problematic...
J
-
So isn't the obvious thing to start off with three in the car? Though I wonder where you'd store them on a motorbike.
-
Right on cue...
http://road.cc/content/news/236335-dutch-study-using-headphones-negatively-affects-perception-sounds-crucial-safe
The idea that using headphones affects your perception of external sounds seems uncontroversial enough.
What the study doesn’t show is that perception of external sounds is ‘crucial for safe cycling’. That seems to be an assumption.
A couple of my chums are deaf as posts. Despite being keen riders (lotsa cols etc) they are both still alive. Bloody boring to ride with, though.
-
(Another reason why the breathalyser law was stupid is that it suggests you can have a drink and then drive even tho' there was sense in testing yourself the morning after (but then why keep it in the car?))
What made the breathalyser law so unworkable was that you were required to have 2 unused units in the car. So you go out for dinner, you think maybe I should double check I'm ok to drive. So you take out one of your 2 units, test yourself, get an OK that you're sober enough to drive, only to then not be legally able to as you don't have 2 unused units in the car... Which is a bit... problematic...
J
Not really. It just means you have to buy more breathalyser units. Or better still, drink water.
-
Right on cue...
http://road.cc/content/news/236335-dutch-study-using-headphones-negatively-affects-perception-sounds-crucial-safe
The idea that using headphones affects your perception of external sounds seems uncontroversial enough.
What the study doesn’t show is that perception of external sounds is ‘crucial for safe cycling’. That seems to be an assumption.
A couple of my chums are deaf as posts. Despite being keen riders (lotsa cols etc) they are both still alive. Bloody boring to ride with, though.
I am a bit deaf and also can't see much behind me due to arthritis and spectacle frames. Believe me, not knowing, what is going on behind you is dangerous !!! Still doesn't stop me riding though.
-
I don't think deafness is the same as headphone use, because people with non-transient[1] hearing loss are used to hearing not being part of their awareness of their surroundings and compensate accordingly, and because there's a difference between not having auditory input and having extra, irrelevant, auditory input to process.
As someone with audiologically normal[2] hearing, I do find myself habitually using hearing to add to my awareness of my surroundings while cycling. It isn't particularly useful for safety-critical decisions (you still need a mirror/shoulder check before manoeuvring), and it sometimes lets me down in spectacular ways (typically being startled by cyclists 'appearing from nowhere' saying hello as they overtake, and occasionally misidentifying an emergency services vehicle as Yet Another Van). TBH, I find hearing most useful on the road for electric vehicle spotting (they have a very distinctive sound that stands out in traffic) and oik detection (https://yacf.co.uk/forum/index.php?topic=1629.0), and for early diagnosis of mechanical problems with my bike.
[1] I've currently got fluid in my middle ears due to infection, and because I'm not used to it, the fluctuations in my hearing *are* extremely distracting.
[2] My speech processing is rubbish, but that's not relevant here.